Ending the Electoral College

[KeithE4]

The Equal Rights Amendment has been trying to get to 38 since 1972. I can't think of a single proposed amendment that would have any chance of ratification in today's angry, polarized nation.

The Equal Rights Amendment has a better chance of passing than an amendment abolishing the Electoral College. And the Equal Rights Amendment has almost no chance of passing. It's been around in one form or another for almost 100 years.

But never say never. It took over 200 years to ratify what is now the 27th Amendment, regarding Congresscritters' pay. It was originally the 2nd (the first two were never ratified, the 3rd became the 1st, and so on). Having never been officially removed as a proposed amendment after Kentucky became the 7th state to ratify it (1792) and Ohio became the 8th (1873), it was revived in 1982. It was ratified by 29 more states between 1983 and 1992, when it was finally added to the Constitution.

Maybe the Equal Rights Amendment will be ratified in the year 2525 (if man is still alive), but forget repealing the Electoral College. The Cleveland Browns will defeat the Detroit Lions in a Super Bowl before that happens.

 

[semoochie]

The chances of ending the Electoral College, given that it would take 38 states to ratify such an amendment, are several orders of magnitude less than zero.



The National Popular Vote Agreement is a non-starter. I believe there is a Federal law that prohibits such agreements between states without the consent of Congress. Lotsa luck getting that to happen.

One thing that can be done without a Constitutional amendment is for all states to divvy up their electoral votes like Nebraska and Maine do: One vote for each Congressional district, plus two for the statewide popular vote (representing the two Senators). It's not perfect, but it would make the electoral votes more in line with the popular vote nationwide. Each state legislature would have to approve such an arrangement, with the Governor's signature. In some states, a change to the state Constitution might be necessary.



There were aspects of its creation that are invalid today, such as counting each slave as 3/5 of a person for census purposes, never mind the fact that slaves neither could vote nor were they considered legal persons or citizens at the time the Constitution was created and first ratified. That's the main argument for abolishing the Electoral College, even though that was done away with via the 13th thru the 15th Amendments, over 150 years ago.

It isn't an agreement. It's a bill that goes through the legislative process in each state and is signed into law by the governor. When it reaches the equivalent of 270 electoral votes, it goes into effect. It has passed in CA, CO, CT, DC, DE, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI, VT and WA. This is all explained on the website.

 

[umfan]

I admit I was wrong about Virginia. The growing population of the DC suburbs has made it a toss-up in most presidential elections, and it was presidential elections to which I was referring. Aren't Roanoke, Lynchburg, Newport News, the Richmond suburbs and rural Virginia still largely Republican, though?

Richmond proper has largely tipped left, but the suburban areas there still largely lean to the GOP. There has been so many transplants growing the population in the DC suburbs that they drive the statewide vote now.

 

[CTListener]

Richmond proper has largely tipped left, but the suburban areas there still largely lean to the GOP. There has been so many transplants growing the population in the DC suburbs that they drive the statewide vote now.

Much as southeastern and south central New Hampshire becoming home to former Massachusetts residents who still work in Boston but want to escape the Bay State's tax burden has turned New Hampshire from a reliable Republican state into one that's in play in every presidential election and has swung toward the Democrats several times. Most of New Hampshire's population has always been in the southern third of the state, but as the old families die off or move away, the Boston influx has pushed that area left. Head north and, except for the immediate area of Dartmouth College, and you'll find Democrats quite scarce, as has been the case there for many years.

Is there a tax advantage to living in Virginia instead of Maryland, or do the transplants choose Virginia purely because it's closer to the federal infrastructure than Maryland?

 

[landtuna]

Is there a tax advantage to living in Virginia instead of Maryland, or do the transplants choose Virginia purely because it's closer to the federal infrastructure than Maryland?

There are two advantages to living in VA as opposed to MD (both non-esoteric IMHO as I've lived and worked in both):

WalletHub.com lists the overall tax burden of Maryland at 13th in the USA and Virginia at 38th. This is a fairly large span. Living in "almost rural VA" is a lot less expensive than in "urban MD" and is an easier commute for federal workers.

The area around DC in VA was largely rural until several decades ago. The escalating cost of living in DC, and other issues, pushed many people out into VA and it has grown by leaps and bounds since. The Maryland side of DC is much more urban.

Then, of course, this: "Virginia is for Lovers. Maryland is for Crabs". (Old bumper sticker war between the states)

 

[Y2kTheNewOldies]

If the Electoral College was thrown out then I expect to hear stories such as California has put too much weight on national issues though. Or the economy is centralized though to states like California and not to the other states.

 

[FreddyE1977]

If the Electoral College was thrown out then I expect to hear stories such as California has put too much weight on national issues though. Or the economy is centralized though to states like California and not to the other states.

Yep. Which are the very same arguments which caused our Founding Fathers to put it into the Constitution in the first place. Really the arguments on either side have changed little since that time.

But I agree, it's here to stay. You will never get enough state legislatures to agree to cut themselves off
at their own knees to attain a 2/3 vote.

 

[semoochie]

Much as southeastern and south central New Hampshire becoming home to former Massachusetts residents who still work in Boston but want to escape the Bay State's tax burden has turned New Hampshire from a reliable Republican state into one that's in play in every presidential election and has swung toward the Democrats several times. Most of New Hampshire's population has always been in the southern third of the state, but as the old families die off or move away, the Boston influx has pushed that area left. Head north and, except for the immediate area of Dartmouth College, and you'll find Democrats quite scarce, as has been the case there for many years.

Is there a tax advantage to living in Virginia instead of Maryland, or do the transplants choose Virginia purely because it's closer to the federal infrastructure than Maryland?

President Bartlet was a democrat and he's from New Hampshire.

 

[CTListener]

President Bartlet was a democrat and he's from New Hampshire.

So was New Hampshire's only real U.S. president, Franklin Pierce.

 

[gr8oldies]

The first time a Republican would win under national pop vote, when a Democrat would have won the electoral vote, will be the time Democrats clammer to switch it back. Imagine the 2016 results reversed, with Hillary winning the Presidency while Trump won the popular. We'd be being told that the electoral college saved us from a populist dictator just as the founders intended.

If the Electoral College was thrown out then I expect to hear stories such as California has put too much weight on national issues though. Or the economy is centralized though to states like California and not to the other states.

 

[kevtronics]

The first time a Republican would win under national pop vote, when a Democrat would have won the electoral vote, will be the time Democrats clammer to switch it back. Imagine the 2016 results reversed, with Hillary winning the Presidency while Trump won the popular.

Considering that the Democratic candidate has won the popular vote in six out of the past seven Presidential elections, the likelihood of that happening is not very great. Republican leaders have even publicly admitted that their candidates do better when fewer people vote.

 

[FreddyE1977]

The flipside of that is that the Republican candidate generally does not waste his time campaigning in heavily Democrat states because he knows he only has to win the electoral vote, not the popular one.

If Trump had bothered to campaign in places like California, New York or Massachusetts he never would have won them, but might have peeled away enough votes to put himself in the popular vote lead.

But since that's not the object of the game why waste your time and money?

 

[gr8oldies]

Supposedly, Calfornia Republicans would be motivated to turn out because their vote would "count" as opposed to now when they needn't bother. Same with Tennessee Democrats...no real reason to vote.

The flipside of that is that the Republican candidate generally does not waste his time campaigning in heavily Democrat states because he knows he only has to win the electoral vote, not the popular one.

If Trump had bothered to campaign in places like California, New York or Massachusetts he never would have won them, but might have peeled away enough votes to put himself in the popular vote lead.

But since that's not the object of the game why waste your time and money?

 

[boombox4]

If they truly get rid of the Electoral College, get rid of the Senate, too. It is unfairly weighted towards the less populated states also.

And there are some anti-EC people who are also speaking against the existence of the Senate also.

 

[boombox4]

Considering that the Democratic candidate has won the popular vote in six out of the past seven Presidential elections, the likelihood of that happening is not very great. Republican leaders have even publicly admitted that their candidates do better when fewer people vote.

This conclusion you've quoted reflects the idea that the two parties are majority parties. They're not. The largest 'bloc' of voters, 44% roughly, is Independents, and they swing either way. And they are growing. The reason we see things in Democrat vs. Republican is because there is no third party to speak of. But the voting blocs themselves are actually fairly small.

 

[gr8oldies]

Some of those folks won't rest until the ruling party appoints all the Representatives in the House

If they truly get rid of the Electoral College, get rid of the Senate, too. It is unfairly weighted towards the less populated states also.

And there are some anti-EC people who are also speaking against the existence of the Senate also.

 

[DavidEduardo]

Supposedly, Calfornia Republicans would be motivated to turn out because their vote would "count" as opposed to now when they needn't bother.

Very true. I know many Republicans who do not vote in CA.

The system has been changed so that only the two top two candidates in certain primaries are on the ballot in many races. So for Senator, we had a Democrat vs. another Democrat. In such a case, why would a Republican even go to vote?

This is an example of what happens when a single party get an absolute majority: they change the rules so that the other party can never win again. And that goes for either party, depending on the state.

 

[semoochie]

If they truly get rid of the Electoral College, get rid of the Senate, too. It is unfairly weighted towards the less populated states also.

And there are some anti-EC people who are also speaking against the existence of the Senate also.

That's a little different. The states need equal representation in the senate.

 

[boombox4]

That's a little different. The states need equal representation in the senate.

Not if they change it via Amendment.

Believe me, there is a movement that is in line with the anti-EC people that is equally anti-Senate. They see the Senate as allowing less populated states to wield too much power. In that sense, it's not much different from the arguments against the Electoral College.

I myself think it should be left alone, but a lot of people I interact with on social media think otherwise...

Also, in 1789 I think maybe one quarter of the country's population (or some other very large percentage) lived in the state of Virginia, yet the Electoral College and Senate were proposed and became instituted when the Constitution was adopted.

 

[KeithE4]

Not if they change it via Amendment.

Believe me, there is a movement that is in line with the anti-EC people that is equally anti-Senate. They see the Senate as allowing less populated states to wield too much power. In that sense, it's not much different from the arguments against the Electoral College.

I myself think it should be left alone, but a lot of people I interact with on social media think otherwise...

Also, in 1789 I think maybe one quarter of the country's population (or some other very large percentage) lived in the state of Virginia, yet the Electoral College and Senate were proposed and became instituted when the Constitution was adopted.

Getting rid of or adjusting the Senate membership has even less of a chance of happening than getting rid of the Electoral College. It absolutely will not happen under any circumstances whatsoever. Ever.

Sheesh! Some of you people need to read up on how this country was founded -- the good and the bad -- as well as study the Constitution thoroughly.