Somebody is Still Mad Hillary Lost

Sewell · 2019-01-04T04:44:43.228Z

mollyBrown:

Glad to see that you seem to approve of the points in the article.

It’s not common that the other side will supply our side’s winning argument, but that literally just happened.

Sewell · 2019-01-04T05:04:50.133Z

I think the politician in the OP is correct because

RTchoke:

The people of Wyoming should have just as much say as the people of California.

In other words, I agree with that politician and RTchoke. The argument in quotes is an excellent reason to do away with the electoral college.

Indeed, the people of small states should have just as much say as the people of large states.

What’s the conservative counterargument?

BigBear · 2019-01-04T05:31:07.114Z

RTchoke:

The people of Wyoming should have just as much say as the people of California.

And that’s the point: with the Electoral College, and the typical winner-take-all appropriation of EC votes, the person (voter) in Wyoming has MUCH more say than the people of California.

The average electoral vote represents 436,000 people, but that number rises and falls per state depending on that state’s population over 18 years of age. (The map above shows the population 18 years and older per electoral vote by state.) The states with the fewest people per electoral vote, and therefore the highest “vote power,” are Wyoming, Vermont, and North Dakota. In Wyoming, there are 143,000 people for each of its three electoral votes. The states with the weakest votes are New York, Florida, and California. These states each have around 500,000 people for each electoral vote.

Slate Magazine

Which States Have the Most Powerful Votes?

There are many reasons to dislike the Electoral College: It gives a handful of states the lion’s share of campaign attention; it allows a candidate wit ...

Snow96 · 2019-01-04T05:33:01.671Z

Instead of the constitutional amendment, how about people – if they want it, just push their states to pass a law that if and when enough states pass the same law, their electoral college will vote as the popular vote goes.

So far only a few states have passed it. Constitutional and legal.

Sewell · 2019-01-04T05:35:09.655Z

Both options are Constitutional and legal.

Snow96 · 2019-01-04T05:35:45.748Z

And both have the same results. Amendment should be the last option.

Sewell · 2019-01-04T05:36:56.659Z

Or amendment should be the first option. If it is a better option to give an equal vote to every citizen, then it should be part of the Constitution, and not left to the whims of each state’s legislatures.

BigBear · 2019-01-04T05:50:24.674Z

Snow96:

Instead of the constitutional amendment, how about people – if they want it, just push their states to pass a law that if and when enough states pass the same law, their electoral college will vote as the popular vote goes.

So far only a few states have passed it. Constitutional and legal.

Why? Because states with less vote power are unlikely to dilute their power even more, and states with more vote power won’t step up to dilute their power.

Snow96 · 2019-01-04T06:01:38.382Z

And you think 3/4 of the states would approve of the constitutional amendment?

Klaxton · 2019-01-04T06:10:26.744Z

RTchoke:

The people of Wyoming should have just as much say as the people of California.

Actually, the Democrats in Wyoming should have some say instead of the Republicans in Wyoming getting all of the say and the Republicans in California should have some say instead of the Democrats getting all the say.

Split the electoral votes in every state based on how the people in the state vote. That is the best way to go. Either that or just go with the popular vote. Either way the democrat candidate will likely kick the ■■■■ out of the republican because republican policies suck for most Americans.

Klaxton · 2019-01-04T06:13:12.828Z

1, 2, 12

The National Popular Vote bill will take effect when enacted into law by states possessing 270 electoral votes (a majority of the 538 electoral votes). It has been enacted into law in 12 jurisdictions possessing 172 electoral votes (CA, CT, DC, HI, IL, MA, MD, NJ, NY, RI, VT, WA). The bill will take effect when enacted by states possessing an additional 98 electoral votes.

Snow96 · 2019-01-04T06:16:57.638Z

12 out of 50 is a few

Klaxton · 2019-01-04T06:19:45.057Z

63% of the electoral votes needed and roughly 25 percent of the states is a few…

um… ok

SeaManatee · 2019-01-04T06:35:21.389Z

Didn’t trump want it gone before he won by it?

Why yes, he called it a disaster for democracy. And he’s still saying it should go.

Klaxton · 2019-01-04T06:39:39.884Z

SeaManatee:

Didn’t trump want it gone before he won by it?

Why yes, he called it a disaster for democracy. And he’s still saying it should go.

Amazing! Trump was actually right about something once.

Axxowiz · 2019-01-04T07:24:23.600Z

It’s a pretty hard process to get rid of the electoral college 2/3rd senate, congress and a host of other procedures that’s near impossible to achieve.

BillBrown · 2019-01-04T09:50:40.728Z

Axxowiz:

It’s a pretty hard process to get rid of the electoral college 2/3rd senate, congress and a host of other procedures that’s near impossible to achieve.

Not a host of other procedures.
Just ratification by 3/4 of the states. (38). Yes, it’s hard to achieve.

mobulis · 2019-01-04T10:51:35.900Z

RTchoke:

The people of Wyoming should have just as much say as the people of California.

They do…

BigBear · 2019-01-04T13:26:57.710Z

Snow96:

And you think 3/4 of the states would approve of the constitutional amendment?

I didn’t claim that. I was simply responding to you suggestion that states should on their own adopt a proportional distribution of EC votes.

As to whether that threshold could be reached, it would be tough. But it would be made an easier goal given that states would know that the change would apply to all states at once, or none if the proposal eventually fails. There would be time to work on the fence-sitters.

BigBear · 2019-01-04T13:37:34.632Z

SeaManatee:

Didn’t trump want it gone before he won by it?

Why yes, he called it a disaster for democracy. And he’s still saying it should go.

Yes, Trump said (by tweet, natch) that it was a “disaster for democracy” in 2012, because he thought Mitt Romney had won the popular vote. Because Trump is a ■■■■■■■ moron.