We're stuck with the electoral college. But there is a workaround

[RavenSky]

All of which rises to an obvious question: If the framers who created the electoral college regarded it as an ugly compromise, if no one else in the world copies it, admires it or understands it, if its recent product is the most unqualified and embarrassing president in American history, why has it not followed the same fate as powdered wigs and the property qualification to vote?

The short answer is that we’re stuck with it. The longer version is that the framers deliberately made it difficult to amend the Constitution, requiring a two-thirds vote in both houses of Congress and a three-quarters supermajority of all the states. Ironically, the electoral college resists replacement for the same reason it needs to be replaced: the unrepresentative power of states with small populations. Any proposed constitutional amendment must first negotiate the gantlet in the Senate, where the Dakotas, with less than half the population of Los Angeles, control twice the votes of California. It must then achieve a supermajority among the 50 states, where Vermont and Rhode Island have the same clout as New York or Pennsylvania. Think of it as the constitutional version of a Catch-22.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-...ith-the-electoral-college-20190120-story.html

 

[Keith&Co.]

Where's the workaround, then?

There's the fix described, and the difficulties in employing the fix, but that's not what a workaround is.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The problem with any potential fixes at a state level is that there are 49 other states who'd need to do something similar, as a result of elections being generally close horse races between two candidates.

If a Blue State says that they're going to have all of their electors go with whomever wins the national popular vote, that does nothing except hand an advantage to the GOP candidate, since running up the numbers in Texas and Alabama would give them some additional electoral votes.

If a Swing State says that they're going to assign electoral votes proportionally, all that does it remove millions of dollars of advertising revenue from the state, since candidates would only be competing for one or two electoral votes in that state and that's not worth the spending.

Without widespread agreement amongst the states, none of the proposed solutions would work. If you do manage to get that widespread agreement, you may as well just go for a constitutional amendment as opposed to some kind of half-assed thing.

 

[Elixir]

The problem with any potential fixes at a state level is that there are 49 other states who'd need to do something similar, as a result of elections being generally close horse races between two candidates.

If a Blue State says that they're going to have all of their electors go with whomever wins the national popular vote, that does nothing except hand an advantage to the GOP candidate, since running up the numbers in Texas and Alabama would give them some additional electoral votes.

If a Swing State says that they're going to assign electoral votes proportionally, all that does it remove millions of dollars of advertising revenue from the state, since candidates would only be competing for one or two electoral votes in that state and that's not worth the spending.

Without widespread agreement amongst the states, none of the proposed solutions would work. If you do manage to get that widespread agreement, you may as well just go for a constitutional amendment as opposed to some kind of half-assed thing.

Maybe federally financed elections would help.

 

[lpetrich]

National Popular Vote describes a workaround that has gotten a lot of support.

If enough states agree, then they will give their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. It has to be enough states for an electoral-vote majority: 270 electoral votes. It has passed in CA, CT, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA, with 172 electoral votes, leaving 98 electoral votes to go. So far, it has been blue states that have signed on, and there are not many blue states left -- the others are mostly purple and red.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

National Popular Vote describes a workaround that has gotten a lot of support.

If enough states agree, then they will give their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. It has to be enough states for an electoral-vote majority: 270 electoral votes. It has passed in CA, CT, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA, with 172 electoral votes, leaving 98 electoral votes to go. So far, it has been blue states that have signed on, and there are not many blue states left -- the others are mostly purple and red.

But if you get that many states to agree to it, why not just take the extra step of making it a constitutional amendment? You already know that if it gets implemented, at least a few dickhead Governors are going to find a way to pull out of it at the last minute before an election for short term political calculations and throw the entire concept into chaos. Without taking that ability away from them, it's a pointless bit of tilting at windmills.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I have a better and easier workaround which doesn't require a constitutional amendment and doesn't require unenforceable agreements.

Increase the number of representatives in the House of Representatives. Our current number is not a magic number and is not mandated by the constitution. It can be changed. The more reps, the flatter the representation, the flatter the number of people per elector.

 

[lpetrich]

A Constitutional amendment would be much more difficult to pass. First, 2/3 of both houses of Congress would have to agree, then 3/4 of the states' legislatures would have to agree.

 List of amendments to the United States Constitution -- all 27 of them. Most of them were passed in bursts:

• 1791: 10 -- the Bill of Rights
• 1865-1870: 3 -- aftermath of the Civil War
• 1913-1920: 4 -- the Progressive Era
• 1961-1971: 4 -- the Sixties Era

 List of proposed amendments to the United States Constitution

Among those that failed were dueling as disqualification for Federal office, explicit acknowledgment of the Christian God, outlawing interracial marriage, outlawing flag desecration, outlawing abortion, outlawing same-sex marriage, etc.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

National Popular Vote describes a workaround that has gotten a lot of support.

If enough states agree, then they will give their electoral votes to the winner of the popular vote. It has to be enough states for an electoral-vote majority: 270 electoral votes. It has passed in CA, CT, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA, with 172 electoral votes, leaving 98 electoral votes to go. So far, it has been blue states that have signed on, and there are not many blue states left -- the others are mostly purple and red.

How is it enforced though?

 

[thebeave]

This strikes me as wanting to change the rules of the game because "my guy" didn't win (i.e. Al Gore in 2000, Hillary in 2016). Would Democrats still be wanting to eliminate the electoral college, if things were reversed and their candidates won the electoral college vote, but lost the popular vote in 2000 and 2016? My spidey sense says no. We'd be hearing about how great and necessary the electoral college is.

 

[Tigers!]

This strikes me as wanting to change the rules of the game because "my guy" didn't win (i.e. Al Gore in 2000, Hillary in 2016). Would Democrats still be wanting to eliminate the electoral college, if things were reversed and their candidates won the electoral college vote, but lost the popular vote in 2000 and 2016? My spidey sense says no. We'd be hearing about how great and necessary the electoral college is.

Ssh. Don't talk sense. They will come for you. Could be considered sour grapes.
Just like in the UK with Brexit.
If the results had been reserved i.e remainers just won we would not be hearing about the need for a 2nd referenda.

 

[Tigers!]

If you Yanks could increase the number of people actually voting would that lessen the impact of the electoral college?

 

[lpetrich]

How is it enforced though?

I checked on Answering Myths | National Popular Vote, and I couldn't find anything on what to do if a state reneges on it.

 

[dismal]

If you Yanks could increase the number of people actually voting would that lessen the impact of the electoral college?

Well, you wouldn't know it from this article but the issue is not so much "the electoral college" as its the states using "winner take all voting" for electors.

So, Trump can win Ohio and Florida by a few thousand votes and get almost as many electoral votes as winning California by 10 million votes.

States aren't required to do this in the Constitution, and some don't.

 

[laughing dog]

If you Yanks could increase the number of people actually voting would that lessen the impact of the electoral college?

To the extend that the Electors in the College are mandated by their state to cast their vote for the candidate with the most votes in the state (winner take all), then changing the number of citizen votes would have no effect on the impact of the electoral college.

 

[Opoponax]

This strikes me as wanting to change the rules of the game because "my guy" didn't win (i.e. Al Gore in 2000, Hillary in 2016). Would Democrats still be wanting to eliminate the electoral college, if things were reversed and their candidates won the electoral college vote, but lost the popular vote in 2000 and 2016? My spidey sense says no. We'd be hearing about how great and necessary the electoral college is.

I think the consequences of an unpopularly elected POTUS speak for themselves.

9/11, Iraq, Great Recession, and all the numerous scandals that occurred under Bush/Cheney.
Scandal is the norm under Trump, and half the nation hates the other half.

But don't be bothered with factual things. You seem quite comfortable inventing a reality-free fantasy where everyone acts like you'd like them to.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How is it enforced though?

I checked on Answering Myths | National Popular Vote, and I couldn't find anything on what to do if a state reneges on it.

It doesn't have to be a state, does it? You can have unfaithful electors as well.

 

[lpetrich]

I feel stupid. There is something on enforcement.

9.11 Myths about Post-Election Changes in the Rules of the Game, Withdrawal, and Enforceability | National Popular Vote

The National Popular Vote compact permits a state to withdraw; however, it delays the effective date of a withdrawal until after the inauguration of the new President if the withdrawal occurs during the six-month period between July 20 of a presidential election year and Inauguration Day.

9.10 Myths about Faithless Electors | National Popular Vote

There is no practical problem with faithless presidential electors. There have been only 17 deviant votes for President out of the 22,991 electoral votes cast in the nation’s 57 presidential elections between 1789 and 2012, and only one of them, in 1796, was a true faithless elector.

Presidential electors are loyal party activists who are selected precisely because they can be relied upon to act as willing “rubber-stamps” for their party’s nominee.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I feel stupid. There is something on enforcement.

9.11 Myths about Post-Election Changes in the Rules of the Game, Withdrawal, and Enforceability | National Popular Vote

The National Popular Vote compact permits a state to withdraw; however, it delays the effective date of a withdrawal until after the inauguration of the new President if the withdrawal occurs during the six-month period between July 20 of a presidential election year and Inauguration Day.

9.10 Myths about Faithless Electors | National Popular Vote

There is no practical problem with faithless presidential electors. There have been only 17 deviant votes for President out of the 22,991 electoral votes cast in the nation’s 57 presidential elections between 1789 and 2012, and only one of them, in 1796, was a true faithless elector.

Presidential electors are loyal party activists who are selected precisely because they can be relied upon to act as willing “rubber-stamps” for their party’s nominee.

9.10 doesn't help at all. It says in the past it wasn't an issue therefore it won't be an issue in the future when we get a bunch of states to sign an agreement that would possibly require a state to conspire against the popular vote of their own state when providing electors.

I support the National Popular Vote initiative, however, I think one would be nuts to think that there aren't complications that wouldn't arise in court over it, especially if two slates of electors were sent from one state.

Regarding 9.11, what is the enforcement mechanism?

 

[Trausti]

This strikes me as wanting to change the rules of the game because "my guy" didn't win (i.e. Al Gore in 2000, Hillary in 2016). Would Democrats still be wanting to eliminate the electoral college, if things were reversed and their candidates won the electoral college vote, but lost the popular vote in 2000 and 2016? My spidey sense says no. We'd be hearing about how great and necessary the electoral college is.

I think the consequences of an unpopularly elected POTUS speak for themselves.

9/11, Iraq, Great Recession, and all the numerous scandals that occurred under Bush/Cheney.
Scandal is the norm under Trump, and half the nation hates the other half.

But don't be bothered with factual things. You seem quite comfortable inventing a reality-free fantasy where everyone acts like you'd like them to.

In 2004, there was a recount in Ohio - which Bush carried. Had the recount gone to Kerry, he would have won the electoral college but lost the national popular vote. Oddly, no one seemed concerned about that possible outcome at the time.