Thoughts on this?

[grasping the after wind]

Actually, a popular vote doesn't require a constitutional Amendment. All it takes is for a compact of states comprising at least 270 electoral votes to agree to give their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. Currently, 8 states and DC comprising 132 electoral votes have agreed to such a system, to take effect once the compact reaches 270 electoral votes.

Am I right in thinking that under that system if the voters of one of those states voted overwhelmingly for the candidate with the smaller overall national total the state's electoral votes would go to the candidate that was overwhelmingly rejected by the voters of that state? This seems a rather strange way for state legislators to represent their constituents and a gift for any so elected President to falsely claim a "mandate" because of the overwhelming victory in electoral votes- conveniently ignoring that the popular vote could well have been quite close.

 

[Rion]

Had this system been in place nationwide for the last election Rmoney would have won the electoral college while only receiving 47% of the popular vote. Given the current gerrymandering it is projected that a Democratic presidential candidate would have to win around 56% of the popular vote to get elected.

Isn't actually true. Read the article.

 

[Rion]

Am I right in thinking that under that system if the voters of one of those states voted overwhelmingly for the candidate with the smaller overall national total the state's electoral votes would go to the candidate that was overwhelmingly rejected by the voters of that state? This seems a rather strange way for state legislators to represent their constituents and a gift for any so elected President to falsely claim a "mandate" because of the overwhelming victory in electoral votes- conveniently ignoring that the popular vote could well have been quite close.

Yep, it would. I cannot imagine why certain parties (not Parties, groups) would love that...

 

[Maynard Keenan]

Am I right in thinking that under that system if the voters of one of those states voted overwhelmingly for the candidate with the smaller overall national total the state's electoral votes would go to the candidate that was overwhelmingly rejected by the voters of that state? This seems a rather strange way for state legislators to represent their constituents and a gift for any so elected President to falsely claim a "mandate" because of the overwhelming victory in electoral votes- conveniently ignoring that the popular vote could well have been quite close.

Yes a state's EVs could go to the loser of the state, but the electoral college would in effect be rendered irrelevant. We'd just have a national popular vote that happens to piggyback on the framework of the electoral college. Number of EVs won would no longer be a meaningful metric.

 

[cow451]

Yep, it would. I cannot imagine why certain parties (not Parties, groups) would love that...

Both parties tend to prefer "winner take all". It makes campaign strategy easier by allowing them to focus on fewer states.

 

[Crusader05]

The greatest portion of our population is along both coasts. If we went to a straight popular vote, you will disenfranchise the middle portion of the country. The coasts tend to be liberal and the middle more conservative. There would be no need to campaign in the middle part of the country as the vote would be won on the coasts.

All anyone is saying, and I have heard it from both sides, is that the electoral college needs to be looked at and maybe revised. A better way to reflect the popular vote even. This would also mean that the candidates would have to visit states other than the swing states.

Again, one person one vote, irrespective of where you live. There are conservatives in cities and on the coasts just as there are liberals in the country and the middle of the nation. Now we have a system were we have a handful of states that decide the election. Folks in Ohio and Florida hold much more sway than those in staunch red and blue states.

Also population is shifting away from the northeast and to the south and west.

 

[IzzyPop]

Isn't actually true. Read the article.

First, what article? You linked to a blog post. Furthermore, the author of your 'article' doesn't address the issue, he just waves his hands and says he doesn't like to base the future on what ifs and at some hypothetical future point this scheme could in fact hurt Republican candidates.

 

[jayem]

Actually, a popular vote doesn't require a constitutional Amendment. All it takes is for a compact of states comprising at least 270 electoral votes to agree to give their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner. Currently, 8 states and DC comprising 132 electoral votes have agreed to such a system, to take effect once the compact reaches 270 electoral votes.

Absolutely. Here's the website for the National Popular Vote Bill.

It's an improvement, but it still protects the 2 party duopoly. And party activists still control the nomination process. Both of those things need to change.

National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President

 

[Paradoxum]

Actually, we had our system set up from the start in order to eliminate this kind of Corruption and Party Bias.

We've already deterred significantly from the Out-line laid out by our Founding Fathers (much of it was very much needed because they did not anticipate the Growth that our Country underwent) but Changing the Electorate like this would be shredding one of the last vestiges of the original design.

So much about caring about the Founding fathers, I guess.

 

[abdAlSalam]

So much about caring about the Founding fathers, I guess.

To be fair the original system set up by the founders was a bit crappy. No popular vote for Senate, women and blacks couldnt vote, smaller states held (and still do) more sway than their population would warrant.

 

[Paradoxum]

To be fair the original system set up by the founders was a bit crappy. No popular vote for Senate, women and blacks couldnt vote, smaller states held (and still do) more sway than their population would warrant.

I don't really care about them (more than their ideas warrant), I care more about what is just, but some Americans sound like they really care about them.

 

[DrkSdBls]

To be fair the original system set up by the founders was a bit crappy. No popular vote for Senate, women and blacks couldnt vote, smaller states held (and still do) more sway than their population would warrant.

Indeed. Funny though that one could say that the Original requirement for owning Land to vote had it's benefits (and it's disadvantages) but at least Populations of states wouldn't be much of a Concern.

 

[grasping the after wind]

I don't really care about them (more than their ideas warrant), I care more about what is just, but some Americans sound like they really care about them.

I suppose some of us have at least some respect for the fact that they were willing to risk everything they had ( which for most of them was a considerable amount of wealth and comfort) for their belief in liberty. Had the uprising been suppressed they all would have been treated as traitors to the crown but had they just accepted the status quo and not revolted they would have remained quite well off and comfortable. I do not see even a small measure of that level of commitment to liberty in my country today.

 

[Paradoxum]

I suppose some of us have at least some respect for the fact that they were willing to risk everything they had ( which for most of them was a considerable amount of wealth and comfort) for their belief in liberty. Had the uprising been suppressed they all would have been treated as traitors to the crown but had they just accepted the status quo and not revolted they would have remained quite well off and comfortable. I do not see even a small measure of that level of commitment to liberty in my country today.

I respect them. But I'm not going to think they are correct just because of that.

You have political liberals who are in favour of social liberty, and then Republicans who seem to be in favour of social Darwinism in the economic sphere.

It might be 'liberty' but not a just liberty. Just like the liberty to steal isn't a just one.