Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Mar 16, 2019.
I don't see how this could become law. It is not respecting the will of the people in that state. Why should voters in California, New York, Texas, Florida, Pennsylvania, etc. affect how Colorado's electoral votes are allocated? If any changes are made, it should be doing away with "winner take all" and moving to a system of allocation of votes based on a proportion of votes within the state.
The electoral college exists for a reason, and it is so that tiny states have a chance of having their wishes heard on the national stage. I guess Democrats won't rest until they destroy the EC and have every Presidential election dropped into their laps via California.
Thank you for more polarization.
Its no less will of the people than winner take all primaries one is stupid one is stupid codified.
If everyone want to be stupid I'm up for buying Colorado, Utah, or Montana and possibility the Dakota's.
It was also created to keep people like Trump from winning. So there's that.
Blame the allocation by the states.
This is just an end run around the Constitution.
The only way popular vote works properly is if you have at least two rounds.
Doesn't the Constitution grants the States the right to allocate their EC votes as they wish?
Now that's true. Yet, it is also true that proportionally someones' vote in Iowa means more than someones' in New York or Texas. Popular vote would also effectively end "red states/blue states" and encourage voting by those who normally wouldn't bother under the current system. It would also upend how Presidential Candidates ran their Campaigns (eg: targeting a handful of States' voters). I am neither here-nor-there on this issue, but there are certainly pluses-and minuses to consider.
The system, as it currently stands with the Electoral College, definitely benefits the Republicans. We saw it in 2000 with Bush and Gore, and we saw it again in 2016 with Trump and Hillary. Removing the EC and going to a straight popular vote would benefit the Democrats, which is why you are seeing all of these movements against the status quo from progressives and Democratic politicians. You would naturally see a strategy shift by Presidential campaign managers and strategists as a result, but I don't think it would necessarily be as extreme as you are saying. The Democrats could still easily ignore traditionally Republican states, and "Flyover country", because the population numbers in those areas aren't very high, and all you need is sheer numbers in a straight popular vote election. They can stick with their existing strategy of focusing on blue states (and particularly urban areas) like California, New York, Illinois, etc. because those are where the numbers tend to be. Do you think Bernie Sanders or Kamala Harris is getting on a plane to campaign in North Dakota, all under the hopes of wooing voters, under this new system? Republicans would now be at a disadvantage, so unlike Democrats, they would definitely change their strategy a little bit. I would imagine that they would no longer completely write off California, and would expend resources to target the more Conservative areas of the state, for instance, but I would think that they would focus on shoring up support in traditionally red states most of all. Meanwhile, both Democrats and Republicans are going to be hammering the former swing states as they have the highest number of potential voters that can be persuaded, and they generally tend to have higher population counts. However, both sides currently do this anyways, so there would be no strategic changes for the campaigns in those states on either side. I'm willing to admit that I have no formal education or experiences in this area, so I could be wildly wrong.
I have no expertise in this either, and I am on-the-fence with this issue. To put it plainly, US cities are almost always (D). Everywhere else tends towards (R) - (when that meant something). Cities are as such, because you can't govern that many people in such a small area without Government intervention. Rural areas don't have that problem. If, simply put - you had to disenfranchise someones' vote - wouldn't it be the lesser number of said voters? I'm not advocating a Partisan agenda, but wouldn't that make practical sense? The 12th Amendment obviously lays precedent for changes (whatever they may be), if needed.
Another 1000 votes for the Democratic Party in 2000 in Florida and Gore would have won. And another few hundred thousand in 2016 and Clinton would have won. And the electoral college favoured the Democratic Party in 2004 (Ohio, the tipping point state was more democratic than the nation) and 2012 for sure.
No thanks. I think this always comes up whenever one party or the other didn’t like the outcome of the race. It’s just noise. Of course, big city libs feel that only they matter and that’s been true since day one.
Why don’t we just split the country in two? One half is socialist democrat and the other side isn’t. Each side has to fund their own agendas though. Very curious how that would play out....
And I thought it was the GOP who was always being accused of disenfranchising voters. This law does it to an entire state all at once.
In theory Colorado could vote 100% for Candidate A, but if "B" wins the popular vote by 1, then all of Colorado's votes go to them. That's messed up.
Would like to see a proportional distribution via CD like NE and ME.
--- Post Merged, Mar 17, 2019 ---
We sort of have that now with FL "robbing" NY of its wealthy citizens.
--- Post Merged, Mar 17, 2019 ---
Currently the electoral college disenfranchises masses of voters. Republicans in upstate New York and California. Liberals in Birmingham Alabama.
Sure, good luck without California and NY.
Going to straight popular vote would stop that. Because the R vote in California would count as much as the D vote in Alabama.
Look at it this way, every other office is elected by a majority vote of the people being represented by that official. Except the one office that is supposed to represent the entire Nation.
No, it simply makes their votes less valuable. Colorado's law makes them null.
It does. If a state wants to go this route, then so be it. There is also a move in Washington state to require Presidential candidates to release their tax form in order to be on the ballet (see link). If they do not release their tax forms, they won't be on it.
EDIT: Oh, and one more thing. The GOP has specialized in obstructionist politicized moves in Congress to get its way since Gingrich, sometimes even when they are minority party. Now my guess the GOP will get perturbed when Democrats in State legislatures do exactly the same kind of thing.
No, it doesn’t. It simply counts their votes toward national vote totals instead of toward state vote totals.
One of the reasons the EC was created was to force candidates to campaign outside of the population centers. The thinking was that candidates would only campaign where most people live because that's what would determine the outcome of the election (this was especially relevant in the days before TV, radio, and the internet, so people in more rural states would have had no exposure to the campaigns whatsoever). But nowadays, swing states determine the outcome, so candidates spend most of their time and money in swing states. Why should swing states determine the outcome of the election? You don't want California to decide the election, but you do want Ohio to decide it? Either way, a small handful of states will decide the outcome of the election, whether it's the most populated states (without the EC) or the swing states (with the EC).
Obviously, with the EC, some votes are going to feel completely worthless. California always goes blue, so what's the point of even voting for the Republican candidate here? Same goes for a Democratic vote in a state like Idaho that always goes red. No matter how you square it, someone is going to have a worthless vote.
The EC is predicated on the idea that the states determine the election, not the people at large.
The EC isn't perfect, but I'm not really hearing any better alternatives. The EC right now is just the lesser of two evils.
Incorrect. It makes every vote as valuable as any other. The current winner takes all makes vote irrelevant. There are 18M eligible voters in CA. Under the current winner take all there is the potential that 8,999,999 votes can be made irrelevant. Under a straight popular vote system, those votes would drown the D votes in a smaller R state and count towards the election.
The only thing I'm surprised about is that Colorado passed a law like this as I would have thought a state that size would be against having the election decided by popular vote. I bet any money if the election results don't come in the way they wanted them to then the law will be changed once again. My person opinion is people are going to shoot themselves in the foot eventually if they get rid of the Electoral College, for majority rule isn't a great as it sounds. It's going to make minorities have a harder time getting their voices heard in the long run. The United States is a REPUBLIC not a DEMOCRACY as our form of government was based loosely on the old Roman form of government.