|
|
Post by BearClause on Aug 8, 2020 22:07:42 GMT -5
You said you're not opposed to it. If there's nothing wrong with the current electoral college, then why would you not be opposed to splitting votes? There always could be a possible better way at anything in life. Doesn’t mean I oppose system we have now. If they were able to put together a better system I’d be willing to listen and if they could put a system sectioning states districts the right way and I though it was better then current system I’d be willing to listen. They have to come up with something and present it first to make a decision. I’m not opposed to change. I just have to feel the system is right or better then current one Legally it's up to the states to decide. If they really wanted to, each and every one could choose to go the route that [correction] Maine and Nebraska use. But I don't know if anyone else will do it given that it might blunt the impact of some states. Right now what this does is depress voter turnout in states that aren't in contention and results in Presidential candidates ignoring states that aren't competitive. I'd like to see candidates fight for a couple million votes in California or Texas rather than use those states as a piggybank for campaign contributions. |
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Aug 8, 2020 22:11:27 GMT -5
Interesting. I knew that electors didn't have to be faithful (noting that Ron Paul, Kasich, and Spotted Eagle all nabbed an electoral vote in 2016). In the present day, in my view, states are virtually winner-take-all. There was a supreme court case this year that officially made it so states can punish faithless electors. Short-term loss (?) but it will help the legitimacy of the Interstate Popular vote compact. Sure they can punish faithless electors. However, that's really just a matter of states implementing their own laws regarding the selection of electors. That's perfectly Constitutional. |
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Aug 8, 2020 22:12:04 GMT -5
There always could be a possible better way at anything in life. Doesn’t mean I oppose system we have now. If they were able to put together a better system I’d be willing to listen and if they could put a system sectioning states districts the right way and I though it was better then current system I’d be willing to listen. They have to come up with something and present it first to make a decision. I’m not opposed to change. I just have to feel the system is right or better then current one Legally it's up to the states to decide. If they really wanted to, each and every one could choose to go the route that New Hampshire and Main use. But I don't know if anyone else will do it given that it might blunt the impact of some states. Right now what this does is depress voter turnout in states that aren't in contention and results in Presidential candidates ignoring states that aren't competitive. I'd like to see candidates fight for a couple million votes in California or Texas rather than use those states as a piggybank for campaign contributions. . To change the electoral college what do they need like 80 plus percent of states to agree. That won’t happen. I don’t know the exact number of states that have to agree but I know it’s very high and extremely difficult to change that. |
|
|
|
Post by vup on Aug 8, 2020 22:15:15 GMT -5
There always could be a possible better way at anything in life. Doesn’t mean I oppose system we have now. If they were able to put together a better system I’d be willing to listen and if they could put a system sectioning states districts the right way and I though it was better then current system I’d be willing to listen. They have to come up with something and present it first to make a decision. I’m not opposed to change. I just have to feel the system is right or better then current one Legally it's up to the states to decide. If they really wanted to, each and every one could choose to go the route that [correction] Maine and Nebraska use. But I don't know if anyone else will do it given that it might blunt the impact of some states. Right now what this does is depress voter turnout in states that aren't in contention and results in Presidential candidates ignoring states that aren't competitive. I'd like to see candidates fight for a couple million votes in California or Texas rather than use those states as a piggybank for campaign contributions. Understood. Still doesn't sit right, though. |
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Aug 8, 2020 22:20:53 GMT -5
I actually think it’s healthy for the power to go back and forth every so often barring party’s can compromise on stuff also. I don’t think it’s healthy to have one party in charge indefinatly
|
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Aug 8, 2020 22:21:04 GMT -5
Legally it's up to the states to decide. If they really wanted to, each and every one could choose to go the route that [correction] Maine and Nebraska use. But I don't know if anyone else will do it given that it might blunt the impact of some states. Right now what this does is depress voter turnout in states that aren't in contention and results in Presidential candidates ignoring states that aren't competitive. I'd like to see candidates fight for a couple million votes in California or Texas rather than use those states as a piggybank for campaign contributions. Understood. Still doesn't sit right, though. Should the current electoral college system be reformed to produce a more representative result? Absolutely. Will it? I'm not holding my breath...too much vested political interest at stake. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Aug 8, 2020 22:21:55 GMT -5
I actually think it’s healthy for the power to go back and forth every so often barring party’s can compromise on stuff also. I don’t think it’s healthy to have one party in charge indefinatly In which case, you wouldn't mind Trump losing to Biden? Even using the current electoral college. |
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Aug 8, 2020 22:22:35 GMT -5
I actually think it’s healthy for the power to go back and forth every so often barring party’s can compromise on stuff also. I don’t think it’s healthy to have one party in charge indefinatly In which case, you wouldn't mind Trump losing to Biden? Even using the current electoral college. Are you like stalking me or what. Holy crap. There’s tinder if your lonely and need to find someone check it out |
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Aug 8, 2020 22:23:44 GMT -5
In which case, you wouldn't mind Trump losing to Biden? Even using the current electoral college. Are you like stalking me or what. Holy crap. There’s tinder if your lonely and need to find someone check it out Just trying to discuss politics with people I don't necessarily see eye-to-eye with. |
|
|
|
Post by Boof1224 on Aug 8, 2020 22:24:50 GMT -5
Are you like stalking me or what. Holy crap. There’s tinder if your lonely and need to find someone check it out Just trying to discuss politics with people I don't necessarily see eye-to-eye with. No your baiting me and trying to get me to argue. Which is fine. But I’m not gonna argue and play that game to give u material u can just twist. So I say again fine whatever you say and that’s the only response your gonna get |
|
|
|
Post by vup on Aug 8, 2020 22:29:08 GMT -5
I actually think it’s healthy for the power to go back and forth every so often barring party’s can compromise on stuff also. I don’t think it’s healthy to have one party in charge indefinatly I somewhat agree!  |
|
|
|
Post by BearClause on Aug 8, 2020 22:29:14 GMT -5
Legally it's up to the states to decide. If they really wanted to, each and every one could choose to go the route that New Hampshire and Main use. But I don't know if anyone else will do it given that it might blunt the impact of some states. Right now what this does is depress voter turnout in states that aren't in contention and results in Presidential candidates ignoring states that aren't competitive. I'd like to see candidates fight for a couple million votes in California or Texas rather than use those states as a piggybank for campaign contributions. . To change the electoral college what do they need like 80 plus percent of states to agree. That won’t happen. I don’t know the exact number of states that have to agree but I know it’s very high and extremely difficult to change that. To physically change the Electoral College system at its core requires a Constitutional amendment, which would require a ratification by 3/4 of state legislatures. But under the current version of the Electoral College, each state is free to determine how it apportions Electoral voters. There's talk about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which is couched in the language of state legislatures determining the manner in which they select electors. Now there isn't specifically anything unconstitutional about states assigning all their Electors to pledge to the winner of the national popular vote for President. However, there's also no specific requirement that a state have an election for President either. However, as that's what we have in every state, it does seem to work out that way. The issue about that would be that the Constitution does state that interstate compacts aren't legal without the consent of Congress. But if you have a Congress and President willing to sign off on it, then that's a totally different thing. Here's a Congressional Research Service paper on this subject, which does mention some of the ways that Electors were historically chosen. |
|
|
|
Post by cindra on Aug 8, 2020 22:32:06 GMT -5
. To change the electoral college what do they need like 80 plus percent of states to agree. That won’t happen. I don’t know the exact number of states that have to agree but I know it’s very high and extremely difficult to change that. To physically change the Electoral College system at its core requires a Constitutional amendment, which would require a ratification by 3/4 of state legislatures. But under the current version of the Electoral College, each state is free to determine how it apportions Electoral voters. There's talk about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which is couched in the language of state legislatures determining the manner in which they select electors. Now there isn't specifically anything unconstitutional about states assigning all their Electors to pledge to the winner of the national popular vote for President. However, there's also no specific requirement that a state have an election for President either. However, as that's what we have in every state, it does seem to work out that way. The issue about that would be that the Constitution does state that interstate compacts aren't legal without the consent of Congress. But if you have a Congress and President willing to sign off on it, then that's a totally different thing. Here's a Congressional Research Service paper on this subject, which does mention some of the ways that Electors were historically chosen. It's debatable that NPVIC counts as a compact because it doesn't actually create anything that the states would be able to do individually. Each of them is allowed to assign their electors as they wish, that includes assigning them to the popular vote winner. None of the laws passed by any state mention other states. It's more of an informal agreement. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhammer on Aug 8, 2020 22:39:54 GMT -5
Just trying to discuss politics with people I don't necessarily see eye-to-eye with. No your baiting me and trying to get me to argue. Which is fine. But I’m not gonna argue and play that game to give u material u can just twist. So I say again fine whatever you say and that’s the only response your gonna get Bait? You said changing of ruling party every now and then is healthy. So I am simply asking, by your own logic, you will be fine if Biden wins and Trump loses? |
|
|
|
Post by mervinswerved on Aug 8, 2020 22:46:50 GMT -5
The Electoral College isn't even in my top two things I'd eliminate in American government.
|
|
