Why do Democrats want to dump the Electoral College?

It'll never happen. Swing states will never willingly give up their power to decide the presidential election just so Califorina can get it's way.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Metallicus

Oh, my goodness. Those nasty, nasty Democrats.
Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses

At least the Dems knew what was up back then.

"It is difficult to find the words to describe just how evil this plan is," said Pennsylvania state Sen. Daylin Leach, a Democrat. "It is an obscene scheme to cheat by rigging the elections."

I wonder if that criticism applies to Michael Moore.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Metallicus

Oh, my goodness. Those nasty, nasty Democrats.
Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses

I'm a big proponent of the Nebraska/Maine method as it combines the best of both worlds into a reasonable compromise. It is neither 'winner take all' nor is it popular vote.

It would really only work if all states did it, and we would never see Democrat strongholds like California give up the 55 EC lock.

I agree with you,and I would add there should be no party affiliation for POTUS and we should have two rounds of elections to do it right. But no primary's. Go with the primary style of voting so the candidates can stump in the same states at the same time. Second round have 4 or 5 runoff based on some minimum % votes received round 1. I like the idea on splitting the vote and think all states should too as that helps independents have a roll in the discussion of the direction the country is heading.

Then allow the PAC money to help them. We would be able to follow who is paying these BOZO's (off for favors?). If we can see who is paying them it can help us decide who they are better. We need the true direction of the people's wishes instead of the contrived like an afternoon soap opera crap we have now.

I don't have a problem with the primaries except for the 'rolling momentum' crap. They should all be held on one day in all states instead of letting some states have dibs and influence the support later on.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I wonder if that criticism applies to Michael Moore.

He is indeed an obscenity.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I wonder if that criticism applies to Michael Moore.

He is indeed an obscenity.

I know. I've seen his movies.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

But who cares about him.

Is the Democrat leadership calling for such action? Seems the article is only about him.

From the article:

But if that’s what it takes to win, this Democrat would rather lose.

a reply to: Phage

I doubt the person on the street Dem. would want to ditch the EC.

a reply to: Phage

Can fat bastard be considered an obscenity? Genuinely curious

a reply to: Phage

With the Electoral College meeting Monday to formally elect Donald Trump as our 45th president, it is time that we reconsider whether a political compromise approved in 1787 bears any principled or practical reason for being today.

Electoral College belongs in 1787: John Conyers Jr

Most of us don't want to see the Constitution under attack by either party. Our country deserves better.

If Hillary won the Republicans would have wanted the entire thing overhauled.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yeah, but Washington doesn't have much say in the matter.

On February 4, 2016, the Arizona House of Representatives passed the National Popular Vote bill, with two-thirds of the members voting in favor of the legislation. The vote was 40 Yes, 16 No, and 4 absences or abstentions. The Arizona House is the third Republican-controlled state legislative chamber to pass the bill (the Oklahoma Senate and New York Senate being the other two).

www.nationalpopularvote.com...

a reply to: Metallicus

The 11 states in the compact are all solidly Democrat states, so their little parlay will only serve to bite them in the ass the next time there's a situation like we saw in 2004 in which John Kerry could have won the election by simply winning Ohio despite losing to GWB in the popular vote by over 3 million votes. Part of me sort of wants to see that compact stand up until the next such election, which I will gleefully watch their plan backfire right in their faces as they're forced to elect the Republican instead of their intended beneficiary of these types of election shenanigans.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

You're probably right but thankfully it's just a side show anyway. Any end run around the Constitution would be litigated before the Supreme Court and we know how that will go.

a reply to: Phage

Sad but true.

The bill has passed one legislative chamber in 10 states possessing 82 electoral votes (AR, AZ, CT, DE, ME, MI, NC, NV, OK, OR), and has passed both legislative chambers (but in different years) in two states with 14 electoral votes (CO, NM). It has been unanimously approved at the committee level in two states possessing 27 electoral votes (GA, MO). The National Popular Vote bill has been introduced in various years in all 50 states.

Status of National Popular Vote Bill in Each State

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Across the aisle foolishness.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Across the aisle foolishness.

It sounds like a bad idea. But I think, as you point out, it isn't such a partisan effort.

I'm opposed to the EC because it's not truly representative of the people. Too many electors can just choose not to vote for the winning candidate of who the people of their state vote for.

Electors are chosen by the parties who are then suggested to vote for whoever wins the popular vote in their state. There are laws in some states saying that the electors must vote for whoever wins the state but it's never been brought up in court (that I'm aware of) because, mostly, electors are happy to vote for their candidate.

Except in 2016, there were a lot of defectors. I dunno, I'm just not comfortable entrusting the office of POTUS to 270 people who don't have any reason to go with what 130 million people want.

a reply to: Metallicus

It's a simple concept...the majority of the population should rule.

Let's face it, our founding fathers didn't have psychic powers to foresee the immediate relay of information with the internet and television. They also couldn't foresee the political power and influence used by Super Pacs and Corporate America! Various states today strongly align themselves with conservative or liberal views. It creates a situation where highly populated states whether liberal or conservative have more influence in changing the outcome of an election. Political campaigns and money are focused on winning the big electoral populated states while the smaller populated states are considered less significant. America is a country where all voices should be heard and counted, not just segmented portions of the country.

Technology today and unforeseen issues related to it such as, a constitutional right to privacy, has really created a situation where some parts of our constitution have become dated and problematic. Some laws and rights that worked in the 17th century realistically don't work in the 21st century.

a reply to: links234

Except in 2016, there were a lot of defectors.

How many is a lot?