HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Retired » Retired Forums » 2016 Postmortem (Forum) » Abolishing The Electoral ...

Fri Dec 2, 2016, 04:39 AM

Abolishing The Electoral College Is Best For America

We need to abolish the Electoral College.

I'm making this original post while knowing full well that many of you will respond with either:

Defeatist attitudes such as:

We would never get it past congress.

The states would never vote for the constitutional amendment.

The Interstate Compact still requires congressional approval and we could never get that.


OR

Contrarian attitudes such as:

We shouldn't get rid of it because it disadvantages farmers.

If we got rid of it, only two states would get campaign stops during the election.

That's not what the founding fathers wanted. We have a republic, not a democracy.


To the defeatists:

Never give up on a fight that is noble and just. People told Susan B. Anthony women would NEVER get the right to vote. Carry Nation was told prohibition would never pass. Martin Luther King was told to go kill himself. Cigarette companies never imagined the people would turn against them. Truman thought we would forever have a monopoly on the bomb. Mildred Loving was told she would never be allowed to legally marry her husband. I was told that gay marriage would never pass.

Anything worth doing is going to be hard. It won't be easy, it will require clawing through shards of glass and sand-coated barbed wire. It will be painful, but that pain is where the growth is. Growing pains ARE painful, but they are necessary.

One person, one vote. That's a human right, just as much as health care, marriage, and the right to eat at any counter you want.



To the contrarians:

First, a popular vote would not turn into a referendum of only California and New York. Why? Because 82% of this country lives in a state other than California and New York. For that matter, more people live in Texas than live in New York. If you want to reach enough people to win the election, you would need to visit not just LA and NYC, but also:

Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Jacksonville, Indianapolis, Columbus, Charlotte, Seattle, Denver, Detroit, DC, Boston, Memphis, Portland, Las Vagas, Oklahoma City, Baltimore, Louisville, Milwaukee, and Albuquerque.

All of those cities are in different states. All of those cities are BIGGER than the second largest city in the state of New York. All of those cities have more than 500,000 citizens. In fact, all of those cities except Albuquerque have more people than the entire state of Wyoming.

You would have to win major population areas, and that would mean traveling to at least 20 states plus the District of Columbia. By comparison, the 2016 presidential election was fought in just 11 states. Only 11 states had a significant say in the 2016 election.

Yes, population centers would still be the target for rallies, but population centers are already the target for rallies... just in 11 states rather than 20.

More people would vote in states like California AND in states like Idaho because they would know that their votes MATTERED, even if their state was going blue or red... all votes would MATTER.

This would actually spread out the competition for votes rather than limit it.

As for the founding fathers.

This quote from Thomas Jefferson is inscribed on his memorial:

I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.


I have been fighting the Electoral College since the 90's and have posts on DU fighting against it as far back as 2008. This is a passionate issue for me, so thank you guys for taking the time to read this.

8 replies, 2162 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 8 replies Author Time Post
Reply Abolishing The Electoral College Is Best For America (Original post)
musicblind Dec 2016 OP
Grey Lemercier Dec 2016 #1
musicblind Dec 2016 #2
NRQ891 Dec 2016 #3
musicblind Dec 2016 #4
MineralMan Dec 2016 #5
musicblind Dec 2016 #6
MineralMan Dec 2016 #7
musicblind Dec 2016 #8

Response to musicblind (Original post)

Fri Dec 2, 2016, 05:18 AM

1. Increase the size of the House of Representatives, and thus the EC, no Amendment needed

 

Last edited Thu Dec 8, 2016, 01:57 PM - Edit history (1)

The Electoral College is never going away. The National Popular Vote Compact is unconstitutional (especially if the SCOTUS is RW).

There is a solution

Abolition will never occur, as even if the constitutional amendment were passed in the Congress, all it takes is 13 states (the smaller ones, of course) to block it. They have way more than 13 who oppose it.

BUT there is a fix, and it just doesn't fix the electoral college. If fixes the House too.

Expand the House to 1001. That would also Expand the EC to 1106 (100 for senators, 1001 for House, plus 5 for DC). It doesnt take a Constitutional Amendment either, just an Act of Congress (overturning a 1929 Act).

Its been stuck at 435 (with 2 temp added for AK and HI for a couple years, removed in 1962) SINCE 1913!


The population then was 97 million. Now is 325 million. The average rep has almost 750,000 people in his/her district.

Because the EC is based (in the constitution) off number of congress people, increasing the House also increases the EC.

THEN you can more fairly split up those 1106 EV's and those 1001 House seats. Right now, a Wyoming electoral vote is worth 3.7 times MORE than a California vote.


Expanding the House also, of course allow for a more representational distribution for the states as well, at HOUSE government levels. California, and the other large states get FUCKED right now in every way.

The main barrier to this will be getting House members to dilute their power, PLUS Rethugs to go along, as they KNOW they have all the benefits to the current system


Read this for more info. http://www.thirty-thousand.org/

The 1001 is just my own number, you could do it so many different ways (such as the much less impactful (but still better than nothing) Wyoming Rule https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wyoming_Rule or double it, plus one (has to be odd number to avoid ties)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Grey Lemercier (Reply #1)

Sat Dec 3, 2016, 12:02 PM

2. Increasing the size of the House of Representatives would be a band-aid, but it would not be a fix.

The problem is not that we lost this election. The problem is that a vote should be one person, one vote.

I think you and I agree on sentiment, but I'm not sure I'm convinced of your solution. Wouldn't it be just as hard or harder to convince them to add house representatives? And wouldn't that also become outdated with time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musicblind (Original post)

Sat Dec 3, 2016, 12:27 PM

3. there is an issue with the timing

throughout much of my life, you could have easily sold the average American on the idea that their vote does not translate into exactly one vote in the result, and that it is an obscure relic

but if you come across as 'we just lost an election, we're on the curb and we want our power BACK', that's a lot harder sell

there's just a natural reluctance to withhold power from those who seem to badly want it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NRQ891 (Reply #3)

Sat Dec 3, 2016, 02:12 PM

4. See, I really appreciate your response, because

your response is not an attempt to shout me down or discredit me, etc. Many of the naysayers on here just want to dismiss this entirely and treat people who want reform on this issue as "hypocrites" who wouldn't feel that way otherwise.

You are right about the optics.

What we could do to help counter that optic might be this: we don't stop fighting for this cause.

If we continue to fight for the cause, long after this election, or even the next election, etc... and with the same fervor and with the goal to educate... people might take us seriously on the matter.

If we were to fight for this during a time when the Electoral College might favor the democrats, though I don't know if it ever would, then we might be taken seriously.

And that's what we need to do.

My posts in 2008 and 2012 against the Electoral College were during a time that some though the EC might benefit us, and I felt that was a good time for us to try and fight against it.

We need to keep pushing and never give up?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musicblind (Original post)

Sat Dec 3, 2016, 02:14 PM

5. Well, if you say so...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #5)

Sat Dec 3, 2016, 02:27 PM

6. I thought I made a pretty good case.

Do you have any thoughts or opinions regarding the specific points?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to musicblind (Reply #6)

Sat Dec 3, 2016, 02:29 PM

7. The issue has been argued for years.

I do not know you, nor do I know your qualifications. So, sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MineralMan (Reply #7)

Sat Dec 3, 2016, 02:38 PM

8. I don't have any special qualifications.

The only special qualification I might have is that I've argued about this for years and researched it for years. It's been a pet issue of mine. But, other than that, I'm a citizen just like you. It's just a topic I've long been interested in.

If you disagreed, but had real and respectful reasons to disagree, I mean I support that. I liked the comment above that said one of our major issues was the "timing"... I can buy into that. People are going to be skeptical because this is right after an election that was lost due to the EC.

But there might be things we can do to overcome that.

I'm not bashing you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread