Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

Those nasty New England liberals are at it again. This time they want to short-circuit the Electoral College.

Bring on the popularity contest

"...perhaps a dozen states will be battlegrounds in the presidential race. And that's why the state Legislature should pass the National Popular Vote bill, which commits a state to throwing its electoral votes to whoever gets the most votes nationwide. While Senate President Therese Murray and House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi both support the bill,..."


http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/editorials/articles/2008/06/22/bring_on_the_popularity_contest/

Grrrrrrr

[Pligganease]

I think opponents of the electoral college are ignorant.

Were there no electoral college, you would surely see presidential candidates campaigning solely on pledges to give unlimited funding to major population centers and screwing the less populated areas of the US.

[CentralCali]

It really doesn't matter what a state says about how they expect the Electors to cast votes. The simple fact of the matter is that Elector is a federal office and federal law is all that matters. In this case, the federal law in question is the Constitution.

[bacasper]

[Kuros]

[Ya-ta Boy]

It looks to me like they're playing with fire.

Say there is another very close election, like '00. Couldn't the winner of the electoral vote challenge in the courts if states they won give their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote?

Yes, I know it's up to the states to determine how to cast their electoral votes, but this proposed system is deliberately designed to get around the Electoral College. Couldn't the Supreme Court throw out the National Popular Vote law (should it become one) as violating the spirit of the Constitution?

I wonder what Constitutional experts say on this.

[CentralCali]

It's not up to the states how to cast their electoral votes. It's up to each state how to select the Electors. It's up to the Electors how to cast their vote.

[Ya-ta Boy]

I didn't express myself as well as I should have. It's up to the states to determine how and which electors to choose. Nebraska selects theirs proportionally. You are right that each elector has the choice in the end.

[Czarjorge]

The electoral college was originally created why? To give more power to smaller states and to keep the 'ignorant masses' from having direct control over the process. But haven't we moved away from that attitude as a country?

We choose Senators now. The system was changed to allow greater democracy. Shouldn't the same thing be done with the electoral college?

As a system its ridiculously antiquated. The worst thing possible in the next election would be for Obama to win the popular vote and lose the election. I'm not sure we'd have a civil war over it, but I expect that the issue would end up in the courts and get strung out. Complicating the problem would be Bush's 'win' in 2000. People would not sit idly by for another 'stolen' election.

Like it or not, we expect as a people that the candidate with the most votes wins. If that's the will of the people why retain the electoral college?

[ontheway]

[ontheway]

[Khenan]

[bacasper]

[ontheway]

George W. Bush would have lost Florida and therefore the Presidency if there had been a complete statewide recount. This is the apparent result of a review of uncounted ballots in the 2000 Presidential election. The new data, compiled by AP and seven other news organizations, suggests Bush would have won Florida only under a more selective recount of the 4 counties that were the subject of Al Gore�s legal strategy.


This is speculation.

The actual counts and recounts showed Bush won.

[ontheway]

An example of why states should follow the Maine/Nebraska system:

From an article on Obama's plans: