How would you choose a President?

[Pommer]

Amending the Constitution to change the way the Electoral College operates--or even to replace it altogether--is certainly authorized, even if it is not a good idea.

But the schemes that are currently underway, particularly the national popular vote initiative, circumvent the Constitution and most likely are unconstitutional.

The Electoral College was always meant to be the very last bulwark against a corrupt demagogue attaining the Office of the President.
Since “the people” of the several states noticed that it no longer functions as such, they’ve taken steps to nullify the EC.
Have there been any legal challenges to these laws?

 

[Magillacuddy]

The Constitution has been changed many times, by amendment and by activist judges. For example, the second amendment was seen very narrowly by every single Supreme Court until the 1980's, when the NRA began wielding its financial clout, endowing chairs at law schools all over the country to build their own cadre of judicial hit men--supporting assault weapons and making our country as violent as third world nations.

That has nothing to do with "change" in the Constitution. It is merely interpretation.

Right now states are making their own decisions about how to use their electoral college votes. Because some see the nightmare of what the past two presidents who have lost the popular vote but won the electoral vote have done to our country (Bush 43 and especially Trump) they have decided that "the people" are way, way smarter than "the electors." The Constitution doesn't take away states' power to remedy their flaws in changing times.

And that has nothing to do with change in the Constitution.

Maybe this will help. Remove the Constitutional defined Electoral College.

What would your amendment look like?

 

[DaisyDay]

I'm looking for a sane, competent and compassionate person for the presidency.

 

[cow451]

I'm looking for a sane, competent and compassionate person for the presidency.

I’m not running but I’m sure someone will show those qualities.

 

[DaisyDay]

I’m not running but I’m sure someone will show those qualities.

Yeah, but will such a person be elected?

 

[SimplyMe]

Amending the Constitution to change the way the Electoral College operates--or even to replace it altogether--is certainly authorized, even if it is not a good idea.

But the schemes that are currently underway, particularly the national popular vote initiative, circumvent the Constitution and most likely are unconstitutional.

Actually, the popular vote initiative is a legal gray area. You are correct that some view it as a way to circumvent the Constitution. However, others note that the Constitution leaves the power to each state to determine their method for selecting their Presidential Electors, so their belief is that states have the right to select electors supporting the candidate that wins the national popular vote, if that is what a particular state government wishes to do.

I know others want to claim that the states acting in a "coalition" is illegal, and that in this case the states are acting "in concert." But, again, the fact that they have a condition that enough other states have passed a similar law (but the condition that it is a set number of electoral votes, not dependent on which states pass the law) weakens the "coalition" argument.

 

[Always in His Presence]

I base my vote on qualifications, platform and approach to enforcement of certain issues I find important.

 

[Belk]

It's based on averages, that I'm an average white male. Both my parents were stupid, one verging on retarded the other about average but with big personality problems.

I recall applying for a position I was perfectly qualified for and being told that an engineer from India had applied and as they had no engineers from India he would get the job.

I should explain neither of us had an engineering degree, I have an associates but an excellent track record including with that company and the other candidate knew nothing about engineering and the consensus was he had bought his degree, but he didn't speak much English and had an Indian passport so the job was his. And after 5 years in the job he has still achieved nothing and his English is still nearly incomprehensible but that's not his fault, nor that he seems to have no interest in the job.

That is just one of many examples, usually I've lost out to women who knew nothing about the job and didn't seem interested in it, but they are women and have suffered discrimination for over 100,000 years, since our species came into existence, so they deserve all the help they can get.

I do not find your claims credible. I find it much more likely that these people were qualified for the job and that your resentment colors your perceptions. Especially since no one would voluntarily announce that they are using discriminatory hiring practices.

 

[jayem]

Why advocate for tyranny of the majority? The EC exists strictly to combat that.

Why would you advocate for tyranny of the most populous states? A candidate could lose by a landslide in 39 states. But if s(he) wins a bare majority in 11 states, that's a EC majority. And a win. Why should states be more important than voters?

 

[Lost4words]

I think he should be chosen after careful examination of his hair style.

 

[jayem]

Even before eliminating the obsolete EC, I want to change how Presidential candidates are nominated. There should be a national Presidential primary election sometime in the summer before the general election. Every candidate, from every party, or independent, who qualifies for each state's ballot, will run run against each other in the primary. The results will be tallied by ranked choice voting. The top 2 most preferred candidates will be the nominees. They'll chose running mates, and their campaigns will proceed to the November election as they do now. The final nominees could be from the the same party, different parties, or could be independents. Whatever the voters decide. The purpose here is to break the stranglehold the Republican and Democratic parties have on the Presidency. The major parties can still have their conventions and designate someone as their choice. But the final say in who runs for President is made by the voting public. I'm hoping this will also change the politics of Presidential nominees. Because to run for President, a wannabe will have to appeal to the broadest number of voters nationwide--not just the highly partisan liberal or conservative zealots who now dominate the nomination process. I think most Americans are neither doctrinaire liberal nor conservative, and I want a President who reflects that.

Edited to add: This won't require a Constitutional amendment. Nor, AFAIK, any changes in federal election laws. (I'd have to research this to be sure.) But it would require an agreement among the states, and probably some changes in state election laws. Which is still a pretty tall order.

 

[Albion]

Actually, the popular vote initiative is a legal gray area. You are correct that some view it as a way to circumvent the Constitution. However, others note that the Constitution leaves the power to each state to determine their method for selecting their Presidential Electors, so their belief is that states have the right to select electors supporting the candidate that wins the national popular vote, if that is what a particular state government wishes to do.

In this case, however, they are forcing them to vote against the express wishes of the voters who elected them (as well as against their own wishes).

 

[98cwitr]

Why would you advocate for tyranny of the most populous states? A candidate could lose by a landslide in 39 states. But if s(he) wins a bare majority in 11 states, that's a EC majority. And a win. Why should states be more important than voters?

We are the United States of America. The EC exists to combat factions that are not representative of the citizens of a state; it is also to keep California and New York from deciding all our national elections.

I might be willing to entertain the idea of ditching the EC if there was an iron-clad national voter ID that ensured only taxpaying citizens are voting.

 

[cow451]

We are the United States of America. The EC exists to combat factions that are not representative of the citizens of a state; it is also to keep California and New York from deciding all our national elections.

I might be willing to entertain the idea of ditching the EC if there was an iron-clad national voter ID that ensured only taxpaying citizens are voting.

Every citizen that makes a purchase from a business is paying taxes. Just thought your statement might be interpreted to mean that not all citizens be allowed the freedoms currently allowed by law.

 

[Belk]

We are the United States of America. The EC exists to combat factions that are not representative of the citizens of a state; it is also to keep California and New York from deciding all our national elections.

I might be willing to entertain the idea of ditching the EC if there was an iron-clad national voter ID that ensured only taxpaying citizens are voting.

Why should my voice count less then yours because of where I live?

 

[98cwitr]

Why should my voice count less then yours because of where I live?

It doesn't.

 

[Belk]

It doesn't.

Yes, it does.

 

[98cwitr]

Yes, it does.

Please elaborate.

 

[Belk]

Please elaborate.

Happily. Because votes are assigned by the size of the population different votes count differently depending on where you live. Here is an analysis by a mathematician who does modeling statistics.

If the president were elected by popular vote, every voter’s ballot would have been given equal weight, or influence, over the outcome, and Hillary Clinton would have won. But, as evidenced by Donald Trump’s victory, the Electoral College gives different weights to votes cast in different states. What are these weights, and how can we best compare them?

Most people believe the Electoral College weighs ballots in states with large populations much less than those in small states. For example, as the Washington Post noted shortly after the election, Wyoming has three electoral votes and a population of 586,107, while California has 55 electoral votes and 39,144,818 residents. Distributing the electoral vote evenly among each state’s residents suggests that individual votes from Wyoming carry 3.6 times more influence, or weight, than those from California.

The electoral vote total for each state is determined by its population relative to other states, plus two more votes equal to its representation in the Senate. Yet focusing on state population is not the most useful way to determine the relative weight accorded each state’s ballots. It does not help us understand how the weights assigned to voters by the Electoral College differ from the equal weights given to all voters in a popular vote. That’s because the popular vote weighs each vote according to the total turnout, not the total population

Whose votes count the least in the Electoral College?

 

[SimplyMe]

In this case, however, they are forcing them to vote against the express wishes of the voters who elected them (as well as against their own wishes).

Yet if the Founders wanted to prevent that, they would have included in the Constitution that the popular vote would determine the electors selected by the state. Instead, they left it up to the state to decide how the electors would be chosen -- some states chose not to even pick them by a popular vote.

Besides, if the popular vote nationally doesn't matter when choosing the president, why should it matter if a state popular vote does not matter -- the State Legislature that was elected by popular vote determined the method under which the electors would be chosen. Exactly what the Constitution requires.