Do you favor the removal of the Electoral College?

[Polybius]

Last edited Mon Jan 23, 2023, 04:50 AM - Edit history (1)

Simple question, I'm curious to see what the support is here for eliminating the Electoral College. Should we keep it? Support a Constitutional Amendment to repeal it? National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (which could get struck down by the Supreme Court)? Something else?

149 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	I support a Constitutional Amendment repealing it and switching to the Popular Vote
	138 (93%)
	Keep it for now, but instead focus on the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact
	4 (3%)
	Keep it just the way it is
	7 (5%)
	Other (please explain)
	0 (0%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[KS Toronado]

1. Been saying this for over 30 years.

[Buns_of_Fire]

2. It outlived its usefulness long ago. But Constitutional Amendments

may also be a thing of the past (at least for the foreseeable future). Go with the Compact for now. It's probably the path of least resistance. If the Supremes screw the country over (again), use their decision to help promote an amendment. (And be prepared for the most-affected states - and especially the GQP - to be strongly against it either way.)

[Woodswalker]

3. It's the only thing that gives republicans

the possibility of winning Presidential elections. They would never give it up and any attempt at doing away with it would cause a holy shit storm.

[Mike Niendorff]

4. Both Option 1 and Option 2.

In the absence of a viable Constitutional Amendment, the interstate compact is by far the next best option.

Let's go.


MDN

[planetc]

35. Second that motion.

[crickets]

41. Agreed. Either way, it needs to go. nt

[Maine Abu El Banat]

5. Am I figuring this right

But if we went by the popular vote. Clarence Thomas would be the lone "conservative" vote on the court. Assuming Gore ran and won reelection.

[Polybius]

25. Kennedy probably wouldn't have retired

But yes, you are correct.

[AngryOldDem]

6. Yes. It's outlived its usefulness.

And while I’m here, I’d also like to see redistricting taken away from state legislatures and given to citizens committees and demographic experts.

I’ve had enough of districts that look like they were designed by Rube Goldberg, especially in those areas that are trending blue. I live in one such district and I lost a really good Democratic state senator to a GOP idiot. That chafes.

[Tom Rinaldo]

7. Yes. I actually see a little bit of abstract logic in it, but it is too wildly skewed

Different regions can have significantly different, valid self interests. At it's best the electoral college could serve as a check to help protect domination of minority interests by a majority, or more specifically, preventing sparsely populated regions from being overly exploited by majorities elsewhere making ill advised use of their land and resources through imposed national policies...

That's in theory. In practice it is the minority that dominates the majority under the current electoral college. The formula used to determine electoral votes is simply too far out of whack to bear any resemblance to fair. I of course understand the democratic principle behind relying solely on the popular vote to elect a President, and I would far prefer that to the current system. But the United States has a huge land mass and it has its roots as a Confederation. There are examples, like N.A.T.O. or the EU, where member units retain a degree of power as entities, rather than having their population count be dissolved into on big election melting pot.

[Bettie]

9. Perhaps if the EC more closely resembled where people live

it would work better, say if the house were large enough to accurately reflect population?

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. Yup, something along those lines. Or if each state minimally got two "Senatorial" EC votes, but

up to 10, based on which population tier they fell in. So a state like CA would get five times the "Senatorial" EC votes as, say, Idaho.

Shifting to a straight popular vote though is easier to grasp quickly and defend and far preferred to what we have now.

[Bettie]

13. Yes, it is

But, either other solution would be a decent bridge until we can get a constitutional amendment through, which is virtually impossible these days.

[ProfessorGAC]

44. Biggest Issue For Me...

...is that the writings of some framers justify it as a way to create a buffer between the people & office in the event a populist demagogue came along. The Electors could vote their conscience.
But, a very long time ago, states adjusted their rules that bound electors to vote for the PV winner in that state. So, for me, the best argument for the EC went useless more than a century ago.

[Bettie]

8. I support it, but it will never happen

we couldn't even get the ERA and right wingers hate fair elections even more than they do women.

[uponit7771]

14. +1, they're doubling down on voter suppression cause how good it works

[Bettie]

17. They aren't even hiding their intentions anymore

did you see that guy in Wisconsin bragging about how he suppressed Black voters in Milwaukee?

[uponit7771]

21. I haven't seen it but don't put it past there treasonous asses!!!

[Polybius]

27. The ERA came so close

It should have passed and been ratified by 1980.

[Bettie]

28. Yes, but misogyny is really powerful

the hate for women in this country is why I don't see us ever having a woman as president.

[Ligyron]

36. A good portion of the misogyny is practiced by women themselves.

That's the part that drives me absolutely nuts.

If women banded together in serious numbers instead of voting for their own subjugation this could be a whole different country.

[Ligyron]

37. A good portion of the misogyny is practiced by women themselves.

That's the part that drives me absolutely nuts.

If women banded together in serious numbers instead of voting for their own subjugation this could be a whole different country.

[Bettie]

39. Yeah, it is frustrating

I am related to a whole bunch of women who raise their daughters to be second class citizens.

[Vinca]

10. Absolutely. And something needs to be done about 2 senators representing a state with

under a million people and 2 senators representing a state with tens of millions of people.

[Polybius]

26. That part might be even harder to fix

No way 38 states would ever vote for that.

[milestogo]

30. Unless the Democratic majority keeps getting larger and larger.

[Polybius]

31. It'll never go that large

We would need 67 votes (we have 51 now) in the Senate and 290 (we have 212 now) in the House. But even if we did get massive majorities not seen since FDR, there's zero chance that 38 states will ever vote for it. The smaller states aren't giving up their power. I kinda can't blame them either.

[Sympthsical]

11. I'd expand Congress

435 members of the House isn't etched in stone on some holy tablet.

You can create a more proportional system while still still maintaining balancing things out between different states and regions. It wouldn't take an amendment, either.

[uponit7771]

15. This sounds easier

[FakeNoose]

16. If only we could remove the Repuke Party, then the Electoral College would be fine

It's the Repukes that have abused (or tried to abuse) the inherent weaknesses in the Electoral College system for the past 22 years. They've been amply rewarded for this, and therefore we KNOW they'll continue to do it. That's why the EC needs to be abolished, because we can't abolish the Repukes. Unfortunately.

[themaguffin]

18. I'm not a fan of the smallest states have WAY more influence than the largest. It's not right.

[FakeNoose]

19. It's not like that in the House - the large states get way more representation, as they should

Our systems is bi-cameral. We have two Houses for legislation, the Senate and the House of Representatives. It was set up that way originally because each house has its purpose. Leave it to the Repukes to find ways to abuse both, every chance they get.

They have now found a way to abuse the judicial system as well, so our checks and balances have been imperiled.

I'm agreeing that the Electoral College must be abolished, but not for the same reason that you state.

[themaguffin]

20. Of course & I get the Senate structure, but at a certain point it's absurd & we have long passed it

[JCMach1]

22. Interstate Compact is a MUCH easier reach than Amendment

[Polybius]

23. But it reeks of getting struck down

I don't think the SC will view it as constitutional.

[maxsolomon]

24. I also want the Senate burned to the ground.

500K people in WY have as much representation as 40 million people in CA. 80:1 ratio.

And yes, I'm aware that the Senate represents States and not population, but the disproportion is now absurd.

[Ligyron]

38. There's no way for them to gerrymander Senate seats.

That's about the only good thing that comes to mind.

[Demsrule86]

29. Since there is no way to get rid of it...what does it matter...and Interstate compact won't

withstand court challenges.

[mvymvy]

32. National Popular Vote

To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with less than 6% of the U.S. population.

Instead, State legislators in states with 75 more electoral votes are needed to enact the National Popular Vote bill.

There have been hundreds of unsuccessful proposed amendments to modify or abolish the Electoral College - more than any other subject of Constitutional reform.

In 1969, the U.S. House of Representatives voted 338-70 to require winning the national popular vote to become President.
3 Southern segregationist Senators led a filibuster to kill it.

The National Popular Vote bill simply again changes state statutes, using the same constitutional power for how existing state winner-take-all laws came into existence in 48 states in the first place.
Maine (in 1969) and Nebraska (in 1992) chose not to have winner-take-all laws.
The bill will guarantee the majority of Electoral College votes and the presidency to the candidate who wins the most popular votes in the country.
The bill changes state statewide winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.

States are agreeing to award their 270+ Electoral College votes to the winner of the most national popular votes, by simply again changing their state’s law.

All votes would be valued equally as 1 vote in presidential elections, no matter where voters live.

There is nothing in the Constitution that prevents states from making the decision now that winning the national popular vote is required to win the Electoral College and the presidency.

It is perfectly within a state’s authority to decide that national popularity is the overriding substantive criterion by which a president should be chosen.

The 2020 Supreme Court unanimously reaffirmed the power of states over their electoral votes.

The decision held that the power of the legislature under Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution is “far reaching” and it conveys the “the broadest power of determination over who becomes an elector.” This is consistent with 130 years of Supreme Court jurisprudence.

NationalPopularVote.com

[edhopper]

33. How can giving us

two of the worse Presidents in History not be the strongest argument to get rid of it?

[Polybius]

34. Kick!

Let's all get our votes in.

[MurrayDelph]

40. I want it to be a dual-representative method.

Using numbers for example purposes.

The Electoral College would have, say 10,000 votes. If California has 10% of the country's eligible voters, they would have 1000 votes. If the election gave Democrats 85%, Republicans 13%, and Green 2%, their candidates would get 850, 130, and 20 votes respectively.

This way it would still be based on actual votes, but you would not have some state (let's call it Florida. Or Texas), where the number of Republican votes exceeds the number of registered voters.

And states would be disincentivised to suppress voter registration, as it would reduce the number of EC votes that state would get.

[former9thward]

42. How would the number of R voters exceed the number of registered voters?

[MurrayDelph]

43. If one of those election-denying Republicans had won their Secretary of State election

Every election would be won by Republicans regardless of how many voters there actually are in that state.

[former9thward]

45. Elections don't work that way.

There are way too many checks and balances for that to happen. You are presenting a CT which is just a far off as the election deniers.

[Polybius]

47. A year ago we were told if voter suppression reform wasn't passed, we'd never win elections again

We did fine in 2022.

[BlueWaveNeverEnd]

46. red states will never let it happen

[Polybius]

48. Yep

In a way, I can't blame them either.

[LastLiberal in PalmSprings]

49. While we're wishing for impossible things, I'd like the Second Amendment repealed...

...and a night of mind-blowing sex with the cute girl who lives next door.