PA, MI, WI, NC, FL, AZ

[chevyontheriver]

why would you support the candidate of a political party that they would change the rules to eliminate (again) the person the voters support to the person they want?

Why would I? I don't support that party at all.

is that the very definition of election interference?

But it's interference by and for Democrats, which seems to be held to a different standard than if anyone else does it.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Eh... Biden we'll probably tolerate, but if Bloomberg is on the ticket, I think there will be lots of abstentions if not outright protest votes for Trump from the progressive wing of the party.

It would be billionaire vs billionaire for the prize. And I think a lot more than progressives would be turned off by that race.

 

[HTacianas]

At present the initiative is 74 votes shy of the 270 required. If it would work in practice and what legal issues it may have is yet to be seen.

I don't understand what you mean. State legislatures choose their electors. That could only be changed by a constitutional amendment.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

And I'd like to see the swamp drained of both big parties. I'm ashamed of both of them. They're (almost) all swamp dwellers.

Maybe a 'people's committee' like they have in Russia?

 

[mark46]

I include MN on my list where extensive campaigning is needed. It is as close as WI.

As far as what Kobuchar adds, there are two things, plenty for a VP. The first is symbolic; she is a woman. Secondly, she is bright enough to give speeches defending the positions of the ticket, and to give speeches attacking Trump.

I think that we tend to exaggerate the value of the VP. Adding just a little bit is plenty for me.

With regard to MN, Hilary was a terrible candidate, and Klobuchar has indeed won there. She is a good candidate to spend lots of time in the Mid-West.

Hillary did so bad in Minnesota. Her very slim margin of victory was less than the Independence Party candidate got, and less than the Libertarian Party candidate got. Had there not been a bunch of right of center people who would not vote for Trump she would have LOST Minnesota, the most dedicated of Democratic Party states there is. Maybe that was just because Hillary was so bad, or because she presumed Minnesota had to vote for her, or maybe Minnesota won't be a guaranteed state for the next Democratic Party nominee either.

I don't think anyone here thinks Klobuchar is that compelling. Not even in her own neck of the woods. I doubt anyone in Wisconsin would be motivated by her at all. IMHO of course.

 

[mark46]

I don't understand what you mean. State legislatures choose their electors. That could only be changed by a constitutional amendment.

States have a gimmick, a way around an amendment. For example, by state law, the electors of California must vote for the candidate who won a majority of the popular vote nationally, not the candidate who won the majority of the votes in CA. The Electoral College is retained, but made irrelevant.

 

[Desk trauma]

I don't understand what you mean. State legislatures choose their electors. That could only be changed by a constitutional amendment.

The states that have signed on to the initiative have passed bills requiring the electors in that state abide by the national popular vote. The constitution leaves how electoral votes are controlled up to the states hence no amendment or federal action is needed to peg a states electors to the popular vote.

 

[Silmarien]

It would be billionaire vs billionaire for the prize. And I think a lot more than progressives would be turned off by that race.

Yeah, I would hope so. But specifically in terms of Democratic strategy, not angering the progressive wing to the point where it will turn and vote against you should be a concern. Though I'm not sure that it actually is.

 

[HTacianas]

States have a gimmick, a way around an amendment. For example, by state law, the electors of California must vote for the candidate who won a majority of the popular vote nationally, not the candidate who won the majority of the votes in CA. The Electoral College is retained, but made irrelevant.

That's the prerogative of the State Legislature. They can choose electors however they want. But it doesn't affect any other State.

 

[HTacianas]

The states that have signed on to the initiative have passed bills requiring the electors in that state abide by the national popular vote. The constitution leaves how electoral votes are controlled up to the states hence no amendment or federal action is needed to peg a states electors to the popular vote.

Any State Legislature can do that. It still doesn't really change things. But the first time a State awards its electors to a candidate who did not carry the State it is going to cause problems.

 

[mark46]

Of course not. However if the states representing a majority of electoral votes pass this law, then the Electoral College won't matter at all; the candidate with the majority of votes nationally would always win the election, or state laws would be violated.

That's the prerogative of the State Legislature. They can choose electors however they want. But it doesn't affect any other State.

 

[Desk trauma]

Any State Legislature can do that. It still doesn't really change things.

It would if 270 electoral votes were pledged to the iniative, as I said the are 74 short at the moment.

But the first time a State awards its electors to a candidate who did not carry the State it is going to cause problems.

I agree. However I see it as the most viable option to move towards ending the silliness of our current model.

 

[mark46]

Any State Legislature can do that. It still doesn't really change things. But the first time a State awards its electors to a candidate who did not carry the State it is going to cause problems.

Why?

Nebraska and Maine currently do not give their electoral votes to the candidate with the majority of votes in their state. Elections are a local responsibility, unless civil rights are violated.

 

[Desk trauma]

Why?

Nebraska and Maine currently do not give their electoral votes to the candidate with the majority of votes in their state. Elections are a local responsibility, unless civil rights are violated.

Those two states peg their votes to congressional and state wide results, not the national popular vote.

The problem would come in when a state pegs their electors to the popular vote and the majority of the voters in that state did not vote for the winning candidate. It's a recipe for unrest. Imagine if Texas has sent their electors to Hillary in 2016.

 

[JohnAshton]

What do you mean by "gut the EC"?

Look up the National Popular Vote.

 

[JohnAshton]

I don't see enough States changing their electoral system to get that done.

When Texas goes blue by 2024, the NPV will have the votes.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Yeah, I would hope so. But specifically in terms of Democratic strategy, not angering the progressive wing to the point where it will turn and vote against you should be a concern. Though I'm not sure that it actually is.

I think the Democrats of all sorts have a sort of death wish, from the socialist fringe to the billionaire fringe. And I wouldn't mind them splitting up if it resulted in more political parties that broke the mold. The Republicans seem ready for fracturing as well. At least I hope so. May a thousand flowers bloom.

 

[Desk trauma]

When Texas goes blue by 2024, the NPV will have the votes.

I'm willing to venture that a large red state such as Texas flipping would cause a very abrupt change of tune from many singing the praises of the electoral college at present as they only support it due to their party being its beneficiary.

 

[chevyontheriver]

I'm willing to venture that a large red state such as Texas flipping would cause a very abrupt change of tune from many singing the praises of the electoral college at present as they only support it due to their party being its beneficiary.

The electoral college benefits the small states, who should work to preserve their slight power advantage.

 

[Desk trauma]

The electoral college benefits the small states, who should work to preserve their slight power advantage.

As well as the swing states who enjoy disproportionate attention and federal support to garner their votes while millions of voters in safe blue and red states may as well leave the top of the ballot blank during presidential elections if they do not agree with the majority of their state.