Musing a solution to our anti-democratic electoral college .

[SleeplessinSoCal]

Don't pounce on me please, like usual. Just think what this would do. Alternate every 4 years to go by popular vote and electoral college vote. It's a compromise worth pondering since getting rid of the damned thing has Constitutional roots.

Otherwise it's a an amendment fight. I want so much to see a 2 year campaign based on winning the majority of Americans' votes. What would that change? Everything.

[brooklynite]

1. There is no solution, in that any solution would require a Constitutional Amendment

Smaller States that benefit from the EC would have no incentive to negotiate a 50/50 system.

[carpetbagger]

2. Triple the size of the house. Nt.

[Voltaire2]

7. that is a separate issue but also needs to be done.

And it only requires congress to change it. No amendment needed.

[Voltaire2]

5. that's not true.

Each state could agree to allocate their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. That would not require a constitutional amendment. It also doesn't require all states to participate, just enough to control 270 electoral votes.

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation

[Demsrule86]

9. And all the red states would refuse and we would do it ...so best case if no damage worst

case, we lose close elections

[brooklynite]

14. The Interstate Popular Vote compact will never see the light of day...

It has the low-hanging fruit of large and progressive States, but will never pick up enough States to hit 270 EV. If it ever did, the concept would collapse as soon as a State was expected to give its EVs to the candidate who didn't win there.

[Voltaire2]

16. Its at 196.

What certainly is not going to happen is a constitutional amendment. The IPV is far more likely than that.

[brooklynite]

17. The point is: neither are likely.

[Voltaire2]

19. well that is a new point from the point I responded to.

You said "any solution would require a Constitutional Amendment" and that is simply not true.

[Gaugamela]

3. Not to pounce, but I'm pretty sure your solution would also require an amendment to

the constitution.

Another idea that is out there is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Basically, it’s an agreement between states to award their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. The problem is that the number of total electoral votes between the signatory states has to rise above 270 for it to take effect, and at this point all the blue states have signed on and the total is 195. They would have to start recruiting red states, and that’s unlikely.

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

[SleeplessinSoCal]

10. it's not actually in the Constitution. just electors

I appreciate the gentle reproach.

https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/history

[Gaugamela]

20. True, but Article II and the 12th Amendment lay out the process by which

the President and Vice President are elected. To depart from that in alternating elections would require a constitutional amendment.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

4. Not possible

Without amending the Constitution.

[Karadeniz]

6. Not pouncing!!! This is a huge problem. The feds can step in if states aren't getting the job done.

My state gives all its votes to the popular vote winner, so all of us who voted for the loser get no vote. At least states could assign electors proportional...some do. It's a mess, but the Kochs et al want a constitutional convention, so we know that's a landmine at present.

[Demsrule86]

8. There is no solution until we get 67 votes in the Senate and can get 2/3 votes in the states.

I wish we could but it won't happen.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

11. Even worse

3/4 of the states.

[RedSpartan]

12. Answer: The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact

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

Now that the entire Michigan goverment is blue, we have the ability to add that state.

Same with Minnesotoa and Pennsylvania.

It's been a very slow slog, but we are getting there.

[SickOfTheOnePct]

13. Never make it past SCOTUS n/t

[brooklynite]

15. It probably would.

All the Constitution says is that each State chooses its electors. Says nothing about how. And there's no requirement today that it give all of its EVs to the State's winner of the popular vote; that's simply history.

[Voltaire2]

18. there actually isn't a constitutional issue as the constitution is remarkably clear

that each state can choose how to allocate electors.

[SleeplessinSoCal]

22. Con SCOTUS is making it so much worse.

Wonder if the backlash will eventually actually force a change back to sense.

[BlueIdaho]

24. Why?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

25. JMO

but I don’t see how it could be found constitutional for a state to award its electoral votes based on how other states voted.

Plus, I see no way that SCOTUS, as currently constituted, would ever go with what is an obvious end run around the Constitution. I don’t think the liberal justices would even go for this.

But as I said, JMO.

[in2herbs]

21. I don't understand how it really works but would ranked choice voting at least dilute

electoral college?

[SickOfTheOnePct]

23. No