Another reason to eliminate the Electorial College

[irisblue]

Link to tweet

-ND Senators-Its current Senators in Congress are Republicans John Hoeven (since 2011) and Kevin Cramer (since 2019)

-SD Senators-John Thune (Republican Party)Since 2005 and Mike Rounds (Republican Party)
Since 2015


NY Senators-Chuck Schumer (Democratic Party)
Since 1999
Kirsten Gillibrand (Democratic Party)
Since 2009

Population of NY state-8.399 million (2018)

all info from google & wiki

[Demsrule86]

1. I don't like the EC. But we will never get rid of it. Thus we need to learn how to use it to

help us win. I am not much for tilting at windmills...

[irisblue]

3. I can see removal as a long term goal.

[Demsrule86]

27. I understand. But I believe you have to have realistic goals.

What can we do to make the EC work better for Democrats. I don't believe smaller states will ever agree to end the AC.

[irisblue]

31. Consider the time it took for the 17th Amendment to happen

[Polybius]

35. That one sucks really

Without it, the House would vote for the Senators, and we'd have mostly Democrats.

[Hamlette]

39. I thought it was the state legislatures that decided Senators before, not US house

[TwilightZone]

2. Not worth complaining about; it's not going anywhere.

There is zero chance of ratifying an amendment in the current political environment or any environment in the foreseeable future.

[Yeehah]

5. Not worth complaining about a fundamental problem with our democracy?

That's an interesting stance.

[TwilightZone]

7. Sure, complain about it.

Or you could focus your time and energy on something that isn't a pipe dream.

There is zero chance of it going away.

[Yeehah]

10. I disagree

A constitutional amendment to eliminate the electoral college should be a Democratic platform item and a long-term plan should be developed to make it happen. You can't look at a fundamental, anti-democratic problem like the electoral college and just say "fuck it, that's just the way it is." Defeatism is unacceptable.

[TwilightZone]

12. Sure, if you want to lose elections.

There's a reason it's not in the platform.

"long-term plan should be developed to make it happen"

Fine, let's hear exactly how you're going to do it. Provide details. Don't just complain - provide a *real* solution.

Explain just how you're going to convince states like South Dakota to jump on a bandwagon that will make them irrelevant.

"Defeatism is unacceptable."

And pipe dreams are an incredible waste of time and resources. Ignoring context doesn't make that any less true.

[Yeehah]

15. LMAO! Lose elections!?

Juggle your brain box a little bit and see if you can recall how George W. Bush and Donald Trump got elected. Maybe you can explain how establishing a goal to improve democracy in the USA would lose more elections for Democrats than we're already losing with the electoral college. Should be interesting.

I would foresee the first step in accomplishing the goal as a public information campaign - "why we want to do this." Some other measures that could be used would be larger population states using their power in the House of Representatives to coerce lower population states to pass the amendment.

It's the right thing to do and that's what Democrats need to do.

[TwilightZone]

53. So, you have no real plan.

Got it, thanks. Threats it is. That's worked so well for Trump.

[Demsrule86]

28. We do not now nor will in the near future have 2/3 of the House and Senate.

And then you need 2/3 of the states to ratify it. It isn't going to happen. Let's work on the possible.

[Polybius]

36. Why would any Republican vote for this?

We'll never have 67 Senators to do it on our own. Also, why would any small state ever vote for this?

[Bettie]

46. I say we get that amendment ready

and in the meantime, increase the size of the House of Representatives to better reflect our population.

That way, the EC will track more with the popular vote AND reps will have smaller districts making it much harder to gerrymander.

[sboatcar]

20. States could always pass a law

where all their electoral votes would go to the winner of the national election, regardless of how the state voted. Not super likely, but it would be a good way around the electoral college

[marie999]

25. 2016 election, what states did trump win that had a Democratic legislature

and what states did Clinton win that had a Republican legislature? The reason I am asking is how many EC votes would Clinton get in states that trump won the popular vote but had a Democratic legislature and a Democratic governor or a large enough Democratic legislature that could override a Governors veto and how many EC votes would trump get in states where Clinton won the popular vote but had a Republican Legislature and a Republican governor or a large enough Republican legislature to override a governor's veto?

[marie999]

55. The Constitution Article I Section 10 Clause 3

It would take an act of Congress to allow states to enter any agreement or compact with other states.

[Locutusofborg]

6. Getting rid of the Electoral College is not going to happen

Smaller states will not give up their political clout to large states. Joe Biden's path to victory with his electors is simple: win the same states that Obama won twice and Clinton won plus win back Michigan , Pennsylvania and Wisconsin which Clinton narrowly lost. That's 279 Electoral votes and a win.

[Yeehah]

11. Of course it could happen

Larger population states have the power in the House. They can wield that power to coerce lower population states. Several low population states would support the amendment right now. Defeatism is unacceptable.

[TwilightZone]

13. You think threatening states will convince them to abandon the EC?

lol, no.

[Locutusofborg]

41. In order to eliminate the Electoral College

The Constitution must be amended. That would require approval of 3/4ths of the state legislatures. That's 38 states. 13 state legislatures voting no would stop it.
Alaska, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, South Dakota, North Dakota, Kansas, Nebraska, Iowa, South Carolina, Arkansas, Tennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, Indiana, and Oklahoma would be likely to vote no. They are smaller states in population with few electoral votes and Republican dominated state legislatures.

[Voltaire2]

44. it can be eliminated without an amendment

the national popular vote compact just needs states with a total of 270 EV to sign on and the electoral college is effectively eliminated.

196 as of today.

[TwilightZone]

54. There has been no confirmation that that would provide legal status.

It may require Congressional approval or a Constitutional Amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Legality

[Retrograde]

8. You've lost half the population of NYS

It's more than just New York City!

But I get your point. My favorite piece of population trivia: more people in my California county - not the most populous, BTW - voted against Trump in the presidential election in 2016 than live in Wyoming! And yet these states get the same number of senators. And as long as it takes 2/3 of the Senate and 3/4 of the states to amend the Constitution it's going to stay that way.

[Poiuyt]

9. Maybe the EC can't be eliminated, but it can be neutered

If a few more states ratify the National Popular Vote interstate compact, then states would delegate all their EC votes to the candidate who won the national popular vote.

[TwilightZone]

14. The states who won't agree to get rid of the EC are the same ones...

who won't go along with the popular vote compact.

Same problem, slightly different topic.

[Turin_C3PO]

19. Mostly true but

if we can win a few state houses in smaller red states, we can pass the popular vote compact in those states and move the needle a little bit.

[Voltaire2]

45. not true. An amendment requires 3/5 of all states. The compact only requires enough states to reach

270 electoral votes. Those conditions are not the same at all.

[marie999]

56. The Constitution Article 1 Section 10 Clause 3

It would take an act of Congress for a state to make a compact with another state.

[Voltaire2]

51. Fewer states are required for the compact.

It only requires states with a total of 270 votes. An amendment requires 3/5 of all states.

[TwilightZone]

52. Amendments require 3/4 of all states, not 3/5.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/about-state-legislatures/amending-the-u-s-constitution.aspx

3/5 was the slave "compromise".

https://www.britannica.com/topic/three-fifths-compromise

It has yet to be determined if 270 EC would provide legal status. The compact may require Congressional approval or a Constitutional Amendment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#Compact_Clause

To-may-to, To-mah-to

[Polybius]

37. Until it's thrown out by this Supreme Court n/t

[AlexSFCA]

16. Add DC and PR to statehood

House already passed DC statehood act, all we need is 50 votes in the senate + VP Harris. All can be done within first few months of dem congress and president. You’ll get 4 more senators, plus additional house seats. Why wasn’t it done when Obama was president within the first year? Why wasn’t it done when Bill Clinton was president during dem congress?

[irisblue]

17. Ford and PR Statehood, December 1976

(Because I'm old and remember this)
Source-https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/statement-proposed-statehood-for-puerto-rico

snip-Statement on Proposed Statehood for Puerto Rico.
December 31, 1976
IN OCTOBER 1975 the Ad Hoc Advisory Group on Puerto Rico, appointed jointly by the President of the United States and the Governor of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, recommended a new Compact of Permanent Union between Puerto Rico and the United States, to provide maximum self-government and self-determination for Puerto Rico.

snip-believe that the appropriate status for Puerto Rico is statehood. I propose, therefore, that the people of Puerto Rico and the Congress of the United States begin now to take those steps which will result in statehood for Puerto Rico. I will recommend to the 95th Congress the enactment of legislation providing for the admission of Puerto Rico as a State of the Union.

The common bonds of friendship, tradition, dignity, and individual freedom have joined the people of the United States and the people of Puerto Rico. It is now time to make these bonds permanent through statehood in accordance with the concept of mutual acceptance which has historically governed the relationship between Puerto Rico and the United States.

more at source

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

21. Do the people of Puerto Rico want statehood?

They'd probably have to have some sort of referendum on the issue.

[AlexSFCA]

22. they will have to vote on it

[Demsrule86]

29. They voted for statehood so can become a state at anytime.

[brooklynite]

18. You don't need another argument; you need political clout.

Why would ND and SD give up the Electoral College system?

[BComplex]

23. The best reason to correct the constitution to reapportion senators according to population.

What we have now is tyranny.

[Demsrule86]

30. Again that won't happen either. It was done that way on purpose so smaller states would have a say.

[BComplex]

32. It needs to be fixed, and all but a tiny handful of people think it's fine the way it is. And, of

course they would...they're carrying a disproportionate amount of power and influence.

It's not fair. It's not working. That's why we have the amendment process.

[Voltaire2]

47. the constitution explicitly forbids that.

In article V. So that would have to be amended as well.

Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.

[marie999]

24. The Constitution was written that way so the people would have a greater say in the House

and all states would be equal in the Senate. The idea was balancing the power of the people against the power of the states. Other wise right now the most populous states would have control of the country.

[treestar]

26. No they wouldn't

the People would have control of the country.

With no EC, each person's vote is the same and it does not matter which state it comes from.

The big states don't have that many people. Not enough to overcome everyone in the smaller states. And in the big states, there are people who vote the other way (Californians who vote R would have their votes counted. Texans who vote D would have their votes counted).

I'm surprised people aren't more pissed that they can in effect vote for the person they did not want. If you are in Delaware and you vote Trump, your 3 electors will vote for Biden, so in effect you vote for Biden. The winner take all part is the problem. Every CA Trump voter ended up voting for Hillary via the electors.

[marie999]

43. What I wrote is not about the EC.

What I wrote is why The Constitution was written the way it was. The people control the House and states control the Senate. As far as the EC goes, I am for a popular vote. Changing the way the states legislatures pick the members of the EC can work in either parties favor depending on who controls the states legislatures.

[Turin_C3PO]

33. As of now,

the people in the small states have MORE of a say in government than people in large states. How is that fair in your world? It’s not going to change but don’t pretend it’s fair and just that rural people get more representation than urban people.

[BComplex]

34. It's time that most of the people (majority) had more control over the country.

This isn't a "balance" of power. What we have is a total IMBALANCE of power. Where upper Manhattan has the same population as a state with two senators (N. Dakota). We need to have more of a balance of power in a democracy.

A republic is where a handful of "electors" are supposed to represent the will of the people of the entire country. In this day and age, we don't need a handful of people representing the masses. That's way too elitist, and no longer logistically necessary. Now we should have a democracy. The majority should get to decide.

[marie999]

49. The United States was never set up to be a democracy there isn't any exact name for our government

but constitutional democratic republic is use. In order to get the smaller states to join the union, they had to give power to the states along giving power to the people. Most of what Congress does takes both houses of Congress. The extra power of the Senate is solely advise and consent on cabinet members and judges for The Supreme Court and vote if the House impeaches. The House has sole power of impeachment and all bills for raising revenue originate in the House. The Senate can make changes but both have to agree. Yes North Dakota has the same number of Senators as New York but New York has many more representation in the House. So no we do not have total imbalance of power.

[Voltaire2]

48. It was written also to only allow white propertied males to vote.

So yes, sure the original document had a lot of problems.

Also the motivation was to protect the slave states from interference in their slave economy.

What exactly are we protecting now? It appears to be 'the right of religious nut jobs to enforce their morality on the reset of us", and 'the right of billionaires to not be taxed", and "the right of millions of people to not have decent health care".

[Hamlette]

38. the only way to fix it is to move to deep red states.

enough of us do it, pass an amendment doing away with EC then we can go back to our home states.

Would take about 20 years. Who wants to move to ND for 20 years? I'm thinking about WYO.

[littleredhen]

40. Go after the Permanent Reapportionment Act of 1929 as being unconstitutional instead

The front door isn't going to be open, so go in through the back. Until this was passed, our Representatives were added to every 10 years after the census to make sure our representation was equal. Our Electors are determined by the number of Congressional Representatives we have and so our Electors were increased too.
Is it what we really want? No, but it could get a more equitable voting situation.
Could it show how our founding fathers original intent was thrown in the trash? Yes it could.

Go after the constitutionality of the PRA and settle for direct voting. JMO.

[radius777]

42. The founders never intended a minoritarian system.

They never could've foreseen the outsized role the Senate and the judiciary would have on issues of national importance, or how lopsided population-wise the states would become.

Rat-faced Mike Lee from a small religious state, as 1 of 100 senators, gets to tell the rest of the country 'we are not a democracy' while installing his RW handmaid on the Supreme Court for life.

Basically what we have is taxation without representation, where a retrograde minority sets the agenda.

[BComplex]

50. And that retrograde minority; they've learned to weaponize the constitution in their favor.

Redistricting/gerrymandering, stacking the courts, and eliminating controls on corporations by making corporations "people".

Any fucking idiot can see that a corporation isn't a person, and does not deserve the rights of a person.