Korean Job Discussion Forums

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

ontheway, thanks for clarifying the Nebraska/Maine system. Strictly speaking, 'proportional' was not an accurate word to use.

I agree with czar that much of the public does feel the Election of '00 was stolen. Rightly or wrongly, many do believe this. Contributing factors: Most people don't realize that under the current system we vote as states, not as individual citizens. Second, the vast majority hate the Electoral College and want to abolish it. Many don't understand it very well, but what the do understand, they don't like. Third, most of us remember those pictures of workers holding up those ballots with hanging chads and feel something fishy was going on in Florida.

A few states, Iowa among them, have addressed the gerrymandering problem. What they have done is adopt a computer program that is programmed to draw compact district lines.

If the other states adopted a similar system, it would go a long way in reforming the 'safe seat' problem in Congress where 90% (It's even more I think) of the seats are safe for the incumbent. I've read that one immediate result would be a surge of minority members of Congress. One way to achieve a more equitable distribution of seats (I'm thinking of both minorities and parties) would be for voters in seriously gerrymandered states to seek redress in the federal courts.

Until that problem is addressed, Nebraska/Maine have a better solution than this Massachusetts idea. I really think it's asking for major trouble for a state that votes Democratic to give its electors to the Republicans in years when the Republicans have a nation-wide majority.

bacasper · Joined: 26 Mar 2007

ontheway · Posted: Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:03 pm Post subject:

Ya-ta Boy · Joined: 16 Jan 2003 Location: Established in 1994

I know there is a consensus among the people for reform, in particular for abolishing the Electoral College. The problem is that there is not the requisite number of states to pass a constitutional amendment. I'm fairly certain that if the former presidents, vice presidents and other public figures of stature decided to, they could bring the necessary pressure on the small states to vote for abolition.

ontheway · Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 7:12 am Post subject:

It takes 3/4 of the states to pass a Constitutional Amendment. That means that it requires 38 states to pass identical amendment resolutions. It only takes 13 states to block.

So, which states would NEVER sacrifice their rights of statehood? Which states would NEVER agree to give up their limited remaining power versus the Federal monster?

Here is my list of states that will NEVER vote to end the Federal system and the Electoral College:

Maine
New Hampshire
North Carolina
South Carolina
Georgia
Alabama
Mississippi
Texas
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Kentucky
Nebraska
North Dakota
Montana
Idaho
Wyoming
Utah
Nevada
Arizona
Alaska

There are other states that I consider unlikely to make such a change.

But, if reformers want to make a difference and slowly reform the EC system, they should encourage the states to adopt the Maine/Nebraska system. This can be done one at time. If Massachusetts wants to lead the way, they should follow the lead of their former northern colony.

ontheway · Posted: Thu Jun 26, 2008 9:30 am Post subject:

This National Popular Vote scheme has been signed into law in only 3 states so far: New Jersey, Illinois and Maryland. Hawaii and Rhode Island are awaiting sigs or vetos by their governors. The laws are toothless since they only go into effect if a goup of states representing a majority in the Electoral College actually pass the same legislation. This is unlikely to ever happen.

More interesting, since the laws are being enacted by mostly Dem states, if they actually became operative it would be something like this:

1) The Dem candidate wins the popular vote in a close race but loses in the EC. The Dem candidate will have carried nearly all of the Nat Pop Vote states. One or two of the NPV states will have voted for the Republican, who will have won, except for the effect this law.

At this point, the Republican Party, Candidates, National Committee, the Presidential Elector candidates, and individual voters of the affected state or states will sue over this law in a challenge that will go straight to the Supreme Court.

In a replay worse that that in 2000, the Supreme Court will end up making a court ruling that will look like it is choosing the President. The NPV laws would likely be struck down, the R candidate would still win with an EC majority and less than a plurality of the popular vote, and the result would be chaos. Better that the NPV plan should never see the light of day.

The problems caused by the NPV scheme would be worse than the disease.

2) On the other hand, if the laws go into effect and the results are reversed, with a Repub Pres candidate winning the popular vote but losing slightly in the EC before the plan, the states that passed the plan could all be Dem states, they could all flip to the Republican, and the R candidate could end up with 100% of the Electoral Vote. Could the Supreme Court overturn that result? Not likely.

Stupid plan.

Democrats lose either way.