SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    More Stupid Stuff Coming From Virginia's New Democrat Masters
Page 1 2 
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
More Stupid Stuff Coming From Virginia's New Democrat Masters Login/Join 
Member
Picture of 2BobTanner
posted Hide Post
All the more reason to have the Electoral College updated to have whoever wins that particular Congressional District, that portion of the EC vote goes to that person, and whoever wins the State overall, then the State’s senatorial votes goes to that candidate.

Example, in my own State (Kentucky) the 2016 vote, Trump won 5 out of 6 Congressional Districts (KY3 which is heavily Democrat Louisville voted for Hillary-barf); Trump also won the State by 30%. Thus, 7 out of the 8 EC votes would go to Trump, with 1 vote to Hillary (double barf).

I can’t say how this would work in the other 49 States to well, but that would force candidates to campaign more in the smaller States, instead of only the most populace, as each District’s EC vote would then be in play.


---------------------
LGBFJB

"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it." — Mark Twain

“Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.” — H. L. Mencken
 
Posts: 2692 | Location: Falls of the Ohio River, Kain-tuk-e | Registered: January 13, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Info Guru
Picture of BamaJeepster
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by flashguy:
A State agreeing to the popular vote process would have no reason to even put the Presidential election on its ballots, since the voting of the Electors would not be tied to the wishes of state voters. If even one State did this, there would be no valid popular voter count. Some States could allocate their Electors by the Party held by its Representatives and Senators--again, no need for the President to be on the ballot.

All it would take to put a kink in this plan would be for a couple of fairly large States (Texas and Florida, for example) to vote to align their Electors all to the Party with a majority of Congresscritters and leave that race off the ballot. In a sense they'd still be doing something like the "winner take all" most States do use, because those people are elected by the voters, but with varying degrees of majority. Without valid voter numbers from those States, any attempt to base Electoral votes based on the popular vote would be invalid.

flashguy


As long as one state still allowed citizens to vote there would be a majority of the popular vote for one of the candidates unless there was an exact tie in that state. These (idiotic) proposals don't specify that the candidate win the popular vote counting all 50 states, they just say the candidate with the most votes will get their electors. If all states chose not to have a popular vote, then they would have a problem.

It's a profoundly stupid plan proposed by ignorant people who have no understanding of the consequences or the thought that went into designing our republican form of government.

But, it has already been determined by SCOTUS that an individual citizen has no constitutional right to vote for electors unless and until a state legislature passes a law stating that electors will be apportioned based on a popular vote in that state.

quote:
The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the Electoral College. U.S. Const., Art. II, §1. This is the source for the statement in McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 35 (1892), that the State legislature’s power to select the manner for appointing electors is plenary; it may, if it so chooses, select the electors itself, which indeed was the manner used by State legislatures in several States for many years after the Framing of our Constitution. Id., at 28—33....
The State, of course, after granting the franchise in the special context of Article II, can take back the power to appoint electors. See id., at 35 (“There is no doubt of the right of the legislature to resume the power at any time, for it can neither be taken away nor abdicated”) (quoting S. Rep. No. 395, 43d Cong., 1st Sess.).

Bush v Gore



“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
- John Adams
 
Posts: 29408 | Location: In the red hinterlands of Deep Blue VA | Registered: June 29, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  The Lounge    More Stupid Stuff Coming From Virginia's New Democrat Masters

© SIGforum 2024