quote:

Originally posted by Elk Hunter:
Have you actually seen and interacted with 16 year olds recently?

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
It's un-Constitutional.

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
It's un-Constitutional.

Para, I agree that it should be, but I don't think it is. The Constitution clearly gives full control of how Electors are chosen and vote to the states and makes no limitations on how it is done. New Jersey is considering a law that removes the President from their ballots entirely, and this might also be considered Constitutional if they choose the "overall popular vote" method for their Electors--one could argue that NJ voters would not have an effect on the popular vote (which might be a good idea), however.

The whole idea of the Electoral College was two-fold: first, back then a popular vote for President was very impractical because no candidate would be able to successfully become well enough known throughout the country to conclusively win an election; second, by adding the 2 Senate positions to the Elector count, the smaller states were give a slight edge against their larger counterparts, thus neutralizing to some extent the "tyranny of the majority". Electors were chosen by their states to be honest (supposedly) and educated persons who would make a considered decision on who to elect. The "winner take all" policy that most states eventually adopted based on voting in that state was a later phenomenon--the chief advantage of that method was that choice of President was virtually guaranteed to be conclusive.

Some states have now adopted a "proportional" method of assigning their Electors--their votes conform to how each Congressional district voted, with the Senate votes going to the overall winner. This method does approach giving the choice directly to the people while still preserving the slight advantage of the small states. If every state adopted this method, though, given the current makeup of the voting public we'd have a lot of very close Presidential elections.

flashguy

quote:

Originally posted by ChicagoSigMan:

quote:

Originally posted by flashguy:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
It's un-Constitutional.

Para, I agree that it should be, but I don't think it is. The Constitution clearly gives full control of how Electors are chosen and vote to the states and makes no limitations on how it is done. New Jersey is considering a law that removes the President from their ballots entirely, and this might also be considered Constitutional if they choose the "overall popular vote" method for their Electors--one could argue that NJ voters would not have an effect on the popular vote (which might be a good idea), however.

The whole idea of the Electoral College was two-fold: first, back then a popular vote for President was very impractical because no candidate would be able to successfully become well enough known throughout the country to conclusively win an election; second, by adding the 2 Senate positions to the Elector count, the smaller states were give a slight edge against their larger counterparts, thus neutralizing to some extent the "tyranny of the majority". Electors were chosen by their states to be honest (supposedly) and educated persons who would make a considered decision on who to elect. The "winner take all" policy that most states eventually adopted based on voting in that state was a later phenomenon--the chief advantage of that method was that choice of President was virtually guaranteed to be conclusive.

Some states have now adopted a "proportional" method of assigning their Electors--their votes conform to how each Congressional district voted, with the Senate votes going to the overall winner. This method does approach giving the choice directly to the people while still preserving the slight advantage of the small states. If every state adopted this method, though, given the current makeup of the voting public we'd have a lot of very close Presidential elections.

flashguy

So you think that the Constitution gives the states the ability to (1) essentially amend the Constitution with out going through the amendment process and (2) fundamentally change the structure of the country from republic to direct democracy? I don't think that's gonna fly.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Eric Holder calls for an end to the electoral college: 'It's undemocratic'

quote:

Originally posted by Veeper:

quote:

Originally posted by divil:
Not intended to offend right leaning CO forum members but WTF happened to CO? Why is this state turning into a blue cesspool (electorically speaking)?

The same thing that happens everywhere, and is bound to happen everywhere. People invested in ruling over you and your means of production have nothing but time to make this happen, and can spend all day screaming at the politicians and scamming elections. Liberty-minded people generally have little time to squander on these issues, usually pull the eject lever on local politics, and generally speaking, aren't having as many children as they used to be.

You either breed or convert liberty-minded people. That's just not happening anymore.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
It's un-Constitutional.

quote:

Originally posted by esdunbar:
My view of these types of things has changed. Anymore, anything that speeds up the inevitable split of our country is a good thing imo. Let’s just hurry up so those states who are self suffcient can leave the rest behind. I sincerely hope liberals get their socialistic eutopia. I’ll go with the sane states who still believe in personal reaponsivirly and freedom.

quote:

Originally posted by fpuhan:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
It's un-Constitutional.

Exactly.

The 12th Amendment (Ratified 6/15/1804) of the U.S. Constitution (which altered the original wording of Article 2, Section 1) specifies the manner in which the president and vice president are elected to office. NOT BY POPULAR VOTE. No way, no how.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Eric Holder calls for an end to the electoral college: 'It's undemocratic'

quote:

Originally posted by fpuhan:

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:
It's un-Constitutional.

Exactly.

The 12th Amendment (Ratified 6/15/1804) of the U.S. Constitution (which altered the original wording of Article 2, Section 1) specifies the manner in which the president and vice president are elected to office. NOT BY POPULAR VOTE. No way, no how.