ImLogicallyRight

I just read another B. S. article about individual states making their electoral votes subject to the winner of the vote nationally. I personally have a few reservations about that.

1. What happens if the national vote was within thousands like maybe Georgia? We'd have to recount the entire nation. Probably several times with multiple law suits. And that opinion is not about Trump or Republicans etc and what is happening this year. That is just a fact of what would happen. And we would be hearing of phantom ballots appearing well after the fact in any number of states. So, one of the distinct advantages of each state picking their electoral votes based on their state only, is that disputes are of a smaller level and easier to zoom in on discrepancies.

2. I live in Illinois. Right now, my vote registers in Illinois and as such is directly represented in the Electoral College, if my candidate wins Illinois. But under that projected proposal, my candidate could win Illinois and then be thrown out as useless because my candidate did not win the most votes in America. Would tend to diminish votes in certain states because the most popular candidate in that state is not looked upon as a winner of the whole and so would also diminish votes for down ballot candidates.

3. The United States is a Union of 50 States, each with equal rights within the Union. There are different rules like 2 Senators each, but the House of Representatives is set by population. There are things like filibuster rules that help protect minority opinions and representation. Each state makes its own rules for how to carry on its elections, within some overall rules set by the Constitution. All of these things add up to a balance between majority dictatorship and reasonable minority effective veto over oppressive overbearing majorities. A nice balance is more peaceful and better for the people over all.

4. If the states could force their electors to vote with a majority no matter how that state voted, then they have direct conflicts allowing the various states to sue for an equality of voting regulations. If we have to vote in the Electoral College according to the overall American total, then we have a direct right to demand that you change you overall restrictive or wide open rules as directly effecting where our votes are totaled.

These are various objections of mine to states directing their votes to the overall winner rather then to the opinions of their own voters in the Electoral College.

Any thoghts?

Logically Right

Carol Kelly

Makes sense to me.

Liberty Tree

Agree, the purpose of the EC is to prevent the larger states from running the country.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

Each State has it's own method of selecting electors, each State selects both repub AND dem electors, but only those electors representing the winning candidate actually vote in the college. Some States direct all electors to vote for the overall winner of the most votes, while some States divide electors according to districts won. No States allow the electors themselves to vote according to their personal opinion, nor do they allow legislatures to direct the electors to ignore vote tallies.

Larry Joe

The Framers understood the dangers of a true democracy, especially since we had thirteen individual states that were very jealous of each other and such a constitution would never have been approved. An electoral college in a democracy is useless since you have only one “national” winner. An electoral college in a Republic of 50 states is critical for that republic’s survival. This was one way to share political power between the Federal Government and the states. Such smart men!
Larry Joe
Larry Joe

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

The national vote movement is a progressive attempt at a end run around the constitution. Something progressive are very good at. If they want to eliminate the electoral college do it right. Do it through the amendment process. The attempt to do it any other way is an unconstitutional political conspiracy.

ImLogicallyRight

You are wrong. The Electors are currently supposed to vote for the winners of the state vote, but there is a movement to make them vote for the winners of the National vote. That is the question being discussed.

ImLogicallyRight

Agreed. And that is why the movement among many states to make the electors vote for the national winner instead of the state winner is wrong.

Logically Right

PeterS

Given your great ability to use logic why would we need an electoral college if the national vote is winner takes all?

PeterS

What movement is that and when are the rest of us going to be introduced to it?

Weasel Loc: In the Great State Of Indiana!!

These politicians are paid by us, the people.
Yet they are not speaking for we, who are supplying their pay checks.
Hmmmm...

Strycker Loc: The middle of somewhere else.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact#:~:text=The%20National%20Popular%20Vote%20Interstate,and%20the%20District%20of%20Columbia.

ImLogicallyRight

That is one of the points and that would be wrong for America I'm sure you could come to the same conclusion, and that was one of the points of this thread.

Logically Right

ImLogicallyRight

I'm sure you could have used a little initiative and looked this up on your own with a little effort.
.

https://theamericanleader.org/progress-update/national-popular-vote-initiative-to-neutralize-electoral-college-advanced-in-2019/

ImLogicallyRight

You are right. Maybe they should be held accountable to their promises and paid according to their efforts and successes to the agenda they proposed.

Logically Right