The Electoral College is ripe for reform

Me>> And the Congress must approve any such compacts.

Are you asserting our Constitution arrived here from outer space or something. You should try reading it before getting snarky again. Article 1, Section 10, Clause 3 the "Compact Clause".

Once you do you can come back and withdraw your snarky remarks and apologize for them.

 

Actually, it has A LOT to do. Because your votes counts a fraction over or under 1 depending on which state you live.

Several times as of late, in fact. Which is ridiculous. Why is a minority electing the President better than the majority electing him.

I have no idea what that has to do with any of this. You do know that the Supreme Court has already ruled that electors are OBLIGATED to vote for the candidate for which they were selected, right?

So it's just, outright, the minority electing a President. How can that make any sense?

 

False it was about trade and power within the federal government and 3/5's rule was what the Northern states demanded not the Southern. Get your history straight.

FALSE CLAIM #2: THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE WAS DESIGNED TO PROTECT SLAVERY

Some have made the false historical claim that the Electoral College was enacted to protect slavery. Critics charge that because three-fifths of the slave population was included in the representation tabulation, it supposedly gave Southern states a political advantage with more Electoral College votes. Significantly, though, when the proposal for the Electoral College was voted on during the Constitutional Convention, Northern states with a lower slave population, unanimously voted for the proposal; yet, with the exception of Virginia, the Southern states, with a higher population of slaves, voted against it.7

Moreover, when the Constitution was drafted, slavery was practiced in every state, and the number of slaves did not give the Southern states a particular advantage. According to the 1790 Census, New York and Virginia were the largest slave-holding states north and south of the Mason–Dixon Line.8 If you subtracted the entire slave populations present in each state, Virginia still had a larger population of free people (over 136,000 more) than New York and still would have had more representatives in Congress and a larger electoral vote.

In fact, the Electoral College “contributed to ending slavery, since Abraham Lincoln, having only earned 39.9% of the popular vote in 1860, nevertheless won a crushing victory in the Electoral College—leading many Southern slaveholders to stampede to secession in 1860 and 1861. They could run the numbers as well as anyone, and realized that the Electoral College would only produce more anti-slavery Northern presidents.”9 The Electoral College requires candidates to appeal to a broad cross-section of the American people, which in turn moderates and combats extremism and passions harmful to the country as a whole.
https://www.heritage.org/the-essential-electoral-college/debunking-myths-and-misinformation

 

Why would any enforcement mechanism BETWEEN STATES even be required? You aren't making any sense. You seem to not understand that states can pass state laws and that state courts can hold people accountable to those laws.

 

You don't agree that the winner according to the rules is the winner?

When were Republicans for abolishing the EC? I don't mean some obscure Republican that you can find somewhere in the annals of time making mention, I mean legitimately something that anyone of consequence ever pushed for?

If you want to pass an amendment, I wish you the best of luck. Otherwise, it is a moot point. I can't imagine a bigger exercise in futility than to constantly be arguing against what is clearly enshrined in the Constitution. If this amendment were to ever pass, as a Republican I wouldn't worry about it. We have no way of knowing at this point how it would turn out. It would not change the odds all that much. All we can deal with is the here and now, and listening to the left constantly whine about this is tiresome.

You may as well be insisting that a field goal should be worth 4 points. If you change the rules, strategy will change accordingly. Stop looking back in hindsight and saying if field goals were worth 4 points as they should be, then you would have won.

Nobody cares. We have no way of looking at a past contest and knowing how it would have turned out if 4 points for a field goal were the rules in place. The entire game would play out differently. What about this do you not understand?

Vote totals would change drastically if popular vote became how a President is elected. So too would campaign strategy.

 

What on earth are you trying to conflate now? EVERY state decides who they will support. The swing states for that election vary and are merely the ones where the races are close. And the fact remains there is NO requirement that a vote by the People be held AT ALL. That is entirely up to your STATE, that tract of land you claim they are decides how the electors of that State will be chosen and there is NO requirement for a vote by the people.

That Constitution thingy again, you should read it.

 

Anytime someone talks about reforming the electoral college it means rig it so that only Democrats win.

Never trust anybody that talks about this.

 

Agreements between people or companies or other entities have disagreements ALL THE TIME. What if getting close the election and a state like California adamantly refused to have all it's votes go for the Republican but the Compact said they had to and decided to renege on it what would be the enforcement mechanism? Unless Congress approves it the federal court would not recognize it as an official agreement.

 

The agreement would be a state law. That's the mechanism. If California agreed to such a law, but then later refused . . . you would take them to court . . . in California . . . for breaking California law. This ain't rocket surgery.

 

Always.

 

Know when the state is the definite you take them to Federal Court. California never gets to judge its own guilt or liability in a court that would be a conflict of interest.

 

Nope, one person one vote.

 

Yes I know.

 

Nonsense. The reason you want an end to the electoral college is to prevent any future republican presidents. That makes it a one party system.

 

Really? Can you describe how voting affects one's seriousness. You don't take me seriously because you disagree with me. I can assure it comes back to you from the other direction.

 

I disagree with the rules

Sure

No one is looking back — what is being pointed out in your analogy is that one team gets 4 points and the other team gets 3 for the same field goal.

This is why your side is gerrymandering the **** out of any state they control because you cannot win otherwise.

Tons of people care. Just because you are not one of them does not mean that “no one cares”

Your entire premise thus far has basically been “it’s the law, ****” — and that isn’t a valid argument.

I will continue to call out voter disenfranchisement and I am sure you can figure out where to place your disdain for doing so.

 

LOL. Yes, you spend the time trying to reform it. Meanwhile, Trump will be your next president.

 

I think you are very confused. That is incorrect.

What you are thinking about is the Senate.

The Electoral College gives representation to states based proportionally on population numbers.

(For example, New York has 28 electoral votes and Wyoming has only 3)

 

And that is why Biden is sending illegals in the dead of night to swing states.

 

Yes, women crying because Hillary lost. Then they wanted to get rid of the electoral college.

 

Only as it aligns with the way state law reads about choosing electors.

 

So the only thing a state is is a tract of land? There are no state governments? You are not a citizen of a state? States do nothing other than exist as dirt under our feet? States aren't even mentioned in the Constitution or statutory law as legal entities with their own sovereignty? The War Between the States was just between tracts of land?

Are you an American who studied US History and Civics?

 

States change their laws and especially election laws all the time. Just look what happened in 2020 and officials changing rules in the middle if the election.

So what would be the enforcement mechanism?

 

The. State. Court. System. Is. The. Enforcement. Mechanism. For. State. Laws.

 

I know they aren't people, and only people vote.