Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

In reply to the discussion: Electoral College [View all]

mvymvy

(309 posts)
89. Every vote in every state will matter and count equally
Wed Oct 16, 2019, 11:51 AM
Oct 2019

It's a mathematical fact.
No voter would be disenfranchised - deprived of the right to vote.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

The Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes (and all three stopped using it by 1800).

In the nation’s first presidential election in 1789 and second election in 1792, the states employed a wide variety of methods for choosing presidential electors, including
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council,
● appointment by both houses of the state legislature,
● popular election using special single-member presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using counties as presidential-elector districts,
● popular election using congressional districts,
● popular election using multi-member regional districts,
● combinations of popular election and legislative choice,
● appointment of the state’s presidential electors by the Governor and his Council combined with the state legislature, and
● statewide popular election.

The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The state based winner take all system was not adopted by a majority of the states until the 11th presidential election. - decades after the U.S. Constitution was written, after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

“The bottom line is that the electors from those states who cast their ballot for the nationwide vote winner are completely accountable (to the extent that independent agents are ever accountable to anyone) to the people of those states. The National Popular Vote states aren’t delegating their Electoral College votes to voters outside the state; they have made a policy choice about the substantive intelligible criteria (i.e., national popularity) that they want to use to make their selection of electors. There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents them from making the decision that, in the Twenty-First Century, national voter popularity is a (or perhaps the) crucial factor in worthiness for the office of the President.”
- Vikram David Amar - professor and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the UC Davis School of Law. Before becoming a professor, he clerked for Judge William A. Norris of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Justice Harry Blackmun at the Supreme Court of the United States.

In Gallup polls since 1944 until before the 2016 election, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).

Support for a national popular vote has been strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed. In the 41 now shown on divisive maps as red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.

Most Americans don't ultimately care whether their presidential candidate wins or loses in their state or district. Voters want to know, that no matter where they live, even if they were on the losing side, their vote actually was equally counted and mattered to their candidate. Most Americans think it is wrong that the candidate with the most popular votes can lose. It undermines the legitimacy of the electoral system. We don't allow this in any other election in our representative republic.

In state polls of voters each with a second question that specifically emphasized that their state's electoral votes would be awarded to the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states, not necessarily their state's winner, there was only a 4-8% decrease of support.

Question 1: "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current Electoral College system?"

Question 2: "Do you think it more important that a state's electoral votes be cast for the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in that state, or is it more important to guarantee that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states becomes president?"

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Electoral College [View all] RicROC Oct 2019 OP
we're getting close... krispos42 Oct 2019 #1
I doubt it would hold up in court Polybius Oct 2019 #3
"plenary" and "exclusive" state right mvymvy Oct 2019 #8
The Interstate Compact Clause: onenote Oct 2019 #12
No. mvymvy Oct 2019 #13
The somewhat more comprehensive review of the state of the law by the CRS onenote Oct 2019 #16
Your cut and paste..with no link to the original source(very much not cool) AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #63
What are you talking about? There is no "increase" in power Azathoth Oct 2019 #77
I'm doing no such thing...I'll repeat my question again AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #88
Every vote in every state will matter and count equally mvymvy Oct 2019 #89
"No voter would be disenfranchised - deprived of the right to vote. " AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #90
Every vote in every state will matter and count equally in the national popular vote total mvymvy Oct 2019 #91
A vote reversed is a vote denied no matter how many times you say otherwise AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #92
The Electoral College isn't a state right though Polybius Oct 2019 #22
exclusive and plenary State right mvymvy Oct 2019 #29
What about voter disenfranchiesment? AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #54
Here's another one: Polybius Oct 2019 #57
It's not goimg to survive SCOTUS review...ever. AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #60
Exclusive and Plenary authority mvymvy Oct 2019 #66
Not an option mvymvy Oct 2019 #68
All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live mvymvy Oct 2019 #67
Not if a compact state allocates it's electors to a candidate that AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #73
All voters would be valued equally in presidential elections, no matter where they live. mvymvy Oct 2019 #74
Except in a state that allocated their EC votes counter AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #76
Every vote in every state will matter and count equally mvymvy Oct 2019 #82
I was taught when you cut and paste... you link your sources. AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #84
The presidential election is not a state election Azathoth Oct 2019 #79
Wait...what???? AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #83
This is *literally* the same states rights' argument that Trump supporters use to legitimize him Azathoth Oct 2019 #78
I'll repeat my question.... AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #85
In my opinion the 'National Popular Vote Interstate Compact' is a joke. Captain Stern Oct 2019 #18
NOT a handshake mvymvy Oct 2019 #19
States can easily get around that. Captain Stern Oct 2019 #23
Faithful electors will continue to elect the President mvymvy Oct 2019 #30
Good info, but the stuff you copy and pasted, didn't really address what I said. Captain Stern Oct 2019 #46
So let's say Mississippi joins and Trump wins by 30 points against (let's say) Warren Polybius Oct 2019 #58
No. 270+ presidential electors supporting winner of national popular vote mvymvy Oct 2019 #69
I don't know what you see in this ridiculous bill Polybius Oct 2019 #72
Equality mvymvy Oct 2019 #75
Still a handshake FBaggins Oct 2019 #26
Wrong mvymvy Oct 2019 #31
Not buying it FBaggins Oct 2019 #36
Impairments Clause mvymvy Oct 2019 #37
Have you read ArtI Sec10 of the Constitution? AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #93
Exclusive and Plenary mvymvy Oct 2019 #38
Untrue FBaggins Oct 2019 #42
Binding mvymvy Oct 2019 #39
Doubt it FBaggins Oct 2019 #43
Exclusive and Plenary mvymvy Oct 2019 #44
Terms for Withdrawal mvymvy Oct 2019 #40
The court might also decide it has no authority to tell states how to apportion their electors Azathoth Oct 2019 #80
You'll never get it... brooklynite Oct 2019 #25
status in some Republican states mvymvy Oct 2019 #32
most all of those are now in the fail column Celerity Oct 2019 #45
Nate Silver and 538 infamously did not foresee Trump's victory mvymvy Oct 2019 #48
non sequitur Celerity Oct 2019 #49
You presented as authority mvymvy Oct 2019 #56
Actually you have....though you have yet to show anything .. AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #61
Sounds like the easiest thing to do is eliminate the Electoral College and abqtommy Oct 2019 #2
73% of the way mvymvy Oct 2019 #9
That would require a Constitutional Amendment... Wounded Bear Oct 2019 #10
Thanks, we can use a little luck with all the corruption in our voting process. abqtommy Oct 2019 #15
Changing State laws mvymvy Oct 2019 #20
And has been decided by SCOTUS something of this magnitude.. AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #55
Major Changes using Exclusive & Plenary Authority of States mvymvy Oct 2019 #70
Your point? AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #71
I checked into that a while back. It, surprisingly, would have made no difference in 2016. Captain Stern Oct 2019 #4
This message was self-deleted by its author elocs Oct 2019 #5
I am far more concerned with the wealth of the Congress than just its size... Moostache Oct 2019 #6
Do they represent us? They certainly arent like us. Joe941 Oct 2019 #47
It's a remnant of slavery and obviously shouldn't exist, but good luck getting rid of it. Garrett78 Oct 2019 #7
First, we have to regain a 2/3 majority in Congress (both houses) MineralMan Oct 2019 #11
Changing State laws mvymvy Oct 2019 #21
One quick solution is to lift the cap on the number of House members tinrobot Oct 2019 #14
As I said above, it wouldn't have been a lot closer in 2016. Captain Stern Oct 2019 #17
I think you're mistaken about the larger states being the ones shortchanged. sl8 Oct 2019 #24
This message was self-deleted by its author elocs Oct 2019 #27
not likely as its all in the constitution and no way to get support to even get it to the states beachbumbob Oct 2019 #28
A method for How to award electors is NOT in the Constitution mvymvy Oct 2019 #33
i thought you were suggesting changing the number of beachbumbob Oct 2019 #41
The bill has been passed in 40 state legislative chambers mvymvy Oct 2019 #34
Turnout increases when every vote counts mvymvy Oct 2019 #35
We have never been a "Representative Democracy" grantcart Oct 2019 #50
and the Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 mountain grammy Oct 2019 #52
Underrepresented in the House? sl8 Oct 2019 #65
Thanks. mountain grammy Oct 2019 #81
De nada. sl8 Oct 2019 #86
Well said, grantcart saidsimplesimon Oct 2019 #53
National Popular Vote compact PatrickforO Oct 2019 #51
If it holds up in court Polybius Oct 2019 #59
It won't... AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #62
Increasing the number of reps in congress would be a great Bettie Oct 2019 #64
I sincerely hope this will be the last presidential election our democracy is plagued by the EC jcmaine72 Oct 2019 #87
We can't get the ERA...how are you going to get this by 2024? AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #94
We're not a democracy? Fine jcmaine72 Oct 2019 #95
But it won't be eliminated until the Constitution is amended. AncientGeezer Oct 2019 #96
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Electoral College»Reply #89