Maine votes out electoral college

The winner of four of the past seven Presidential elections did not get a majority of the vote. It's possible I missed it ITT but if the issue is the minority electing our President has anyone stated how that should be addressed? Someone mentioned a run off. They have those in local elections, not sure how that would work nationally. Are there other ideas floating out there?
 
Cypress said:
First, it does not follow from that logic that we should be a nation where the minority routinely gets to dictate who controls the federal government.

And second, we are a representative democracy. We elect people to represent us. That is basically how all the representative democracies on the planet operate. Your word games are never going to change that fact.
Click to expand...

Claiming that "the minority routinely gets to dictate who controls the federal government" is very misleading. Two officials elected 16 years apart does not equate to "routine."

If Hillary had been elected a minority would still have determined the presidency since she did not get a majority of the popular vote. Bill Clinton did not win a majority either election nor did Bush in 2000.

If we are going to play the "majority rule" game we need to change almost all our elections because members of Congress and most other offices do not require a majority to get elected---only a plurality.

Should a person win office if a majority of voters voted against them?
 
Actually, the Republicans relied on the Electoral College requirements of the Constitution...and WON
 
Grumpy said:
This is nothing but a way to circumvent the constitution's electoral college, and give the most populist states an unfair advantage over less populated states. One major effect would be that candidates would focus on the bigger states and ignore the smaller states. This is nothing more than an attempt by blue states to institute mob rule.

ADDED: This would also remove the power of the House and Senate from electing the president if the 270 vote threshold was not reached.
Click to expand...

How would it remove power from the House (not Senate) from electing the president?

I don't favor the plan, but now the candidates focus on the states with more electoral votes that favor them. Republicans don't waste time in CA and NY and Democrats don't waste time in TX because they can't win the popular vote; so, either way candidates are only going to focus on a limited number of states.
 
Howard the Duck said:
Either that, or they are looking to discount their own state's voters, and just cast their electoral votes based upon the national popular vote count.
Click to expand...

Question? Would it not be somewhat "disenfranchising" to the people of the state of Maine if said citizens voted contrary to the will of the nation, and that voice was ignored by the politicians thus eliminating the wording of the Constitution that expressly declares, "The United States shall guarantee to every state in the Union a republican form of government."? What's representative to the good people of Maine if their votes are made to reflect other states voices instead of their own? :dunno:

It would appear that the ignorant legislators in the state of Main have made the assumption that the citizens of their state will always agree with only one party line. Even if this were constitutional what would happen the first time a conservative won the popular vote and Maine was forced by state legislation to cast their votes against the will of the people? That's the problem with liberals, they never think of the long range effects of any of their KNEE JERK emotional voting practices. Hell even in the most liberal/socialist state in the Union Mexifornia......the will of the people in being represented is adhered, as evidenced in the last election, that state overwhelmingly voted BLUE....even though they lost their votes to the will of the nation et al., their voice was heard via the votes of the Electoral College.

Not "one vote" in these UNITED STATES....united being the key term (implying the reality that the US is a conglomerate of separate but equal states) has ever been "disenfranchised" by the Electoral College system. Why? Because the STATES are made to comply with a simple (8th grade language) 8 page document of agreement among the states, the United States Constitution. Every state has their voice represented via the Electoral College format, what this system does guarantee is just as important as casting a vote is to freedom, the EC guarantees there will never be a single party despotic totalitarian form of Government in this nation.....as the constitution makes it vividly clear....every voice from every state regardless of size, must be heard and equally applied through representation.

Conclusion? Our founders where Genius Loci in terms of their wisdom garnered through the history of the world politic. The only way to remove this founding genius? To "fundamentally" change the United States of America from a Republic to a democracy. Where have I heard that propaganda before? :bigthink: If the US were a democracy.....why do all these 50 STATES have separate Constitutions? Paper for federal shit houses?
 
Last edited:
Flash said:
How would it remove power from the House (not Senate) from electing the president?

I don't favor the plan, but now the candidates focus on the states with more electoral votes that favor them. Republicans don't waste time in CA and NY and Democrats don't waste time in TX because they can't win the popular vote; so, either way candidates are only going to focus on a limited number of states.
Click to expand...

How would it remove power from the House (not Senate) from electing the president?
Click to expand...

Amendment 12 to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1804, providing for election of the president and vice president by the electoral college: should there be no majority vote for one person, the House of Representatives (one vote per state) chooses the president and the Senate the vice president.


If the states give their electoral votes to the nationwide winner then there will always be someone reaching 270 EC votes thus the House will never be required to elect the president.


I know it hasn't happened since 1824. "As no presidential candidate received a majority of electoral votes in the election of 1824, the U.S. House of Representatives votes to elect John Quincy Adams, who won fewer votes than Andrew Jackson in the popular election, as president of the United States" that does not negate the fact that this drive would take away some of congress's authority.
 
Cypress said:
You only support the EC because Republicans can get elected with the minority of the vote because of it

I have always hated the EC on principle, and I do not care if it benefited the Democratic Party - I would still hate it, and want it to go. There is something fundamentally wrong with candidates being awarded the office of the presidency even when they could not convince the plurality or majority of American voters that their ideas were superior.

And there is no effing way the framers of the Constitution actually intended a system where one political party was routinely losing the popular vote but still being awarded the presidency anyway.
Click to expand...

I like it because two big cities in two cities can't decide who is President.
 
Wolverine said:
I like it because two big cities in two cities can't decide who is President.
Click to expand...

Want to bet? If this becomes reality NY and California will decide from now on. As they beat Texas and Florida by over 10 million votes. Add in all the blue states and the red states lose.
 
Wolverine said:
I like it because two big cities in two cities can't decide who is President.
Click to expand...

What's the big surprise......LIBERALS don't like the US CONSTITUTION? That thing always stands in the way of their totalitarian dreams of UTOPIA. They can't accept the reality that the United States is a conglomerate of 50 different city state governments each separate and distinct from the other...but each with a guaranteed equal representation through a central government formated only in serving that conglomerate of city states......providing services that the states cannot provide for themselves. First and foremost. A national defense in the form of a standing and ready military. Interstate regulation and infrastructure that allows free, fair and equal trade among these city states as well as global trade. The rest is left wing bullshit. There is no guarantee of individual welfare or a promise of cradle to the grave health care. If you want and demand that sort of socialism....see your state governments.
 
Phantasmal said:
States should not have influence in elections, We the People should have the influence. One person, one vote. States are represented by their elected representatives.
Click to expand...

We the people DO have the influence. We the people vote in our states. Our states then use their electoral votes to vote for the popular vote winner in the state (exceptions being Maine and NE)
 
Grumpy said:
Amendment 12 to the U.S. Constitution, ratified in 1804, providing for election of the president and vice president by the electoral college: should there be no majority vote for one person, the House of Representatives (one vote per state) chooses the president and the Senate the vice president.


If the states give their electoral votes to the nationwide winner then there will always be someone reaching 270 EC votes thus the House will never be required to elect the president.


I know it hasn't happened since 1824. "As no presidential candidate received a majority of electoral votes in the election of 1824, the U.S. House of Representatives votes to elect John Quincy Adams, who won fewer votes than Andrew Jackson in the popular election, as president of the United States" that does not negate the fact that this drive would take away some of congress's authority.
Click to expand...

It doesn't remove the power, it might make it unnecessary. But, if only members of the pact give their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, there may still be situations in which no candidate receives a majority. Ideally, we want the electoral college to select the president rather than going to the House.

At the constitutional convention allowing Congress to choose the president was the most popular among delegates. Many assumed the House would choose the president most of the time because if the electors voted for someone from their own state nobody would ever get a majority of electoral votes.
 
Flash said:
State law could require electors to vote for the national popular vote winner just as today some require them to vote for their state's popular vote winner. In most cases if a Democrat wins the state it is the slate of Democratic electors elected to the state's electoral college and those people are also voting for their choice for president.

Some electors do not vote for the popular vote winner in their state. In 2016 seven electoral votes went to other people--Kasich, Powell (3), Sanders, Paul and Faith Spotted Eagle.

Electors do not have to vote for a candidate running for president--they can vote for anyone they choose. The electoral college did not anticipate parties that would nominate candidates to campaign for the office. It was expected the electors would simply meet and vote for their choice for president and not from candidates.
Click to expand...

maybe the dumbest post I've ever read,

tell me nut@@bag,

does this ^^^ make any sense to you?
 
Flash said:
It doesn't remove the power, it might make it unnecessary. But, if only members of the pact give their electoral votes to the national popular vote winner, there may still be situations in which no candidate receives a majority. Ideally, we want the electoral college to select the president rather than going to the House.

At the constitutional convention allowing Congress to choose the president was the most popular among delegates. Many assumed the House would choose the president most of the time because if the electors voted for someone from their own state nobody would ever get a majority of electoral votes.
Click to expand...

The only reason blue states want this is because they got their panties in a wad when Gore lost to Bush and now Hillary. The system has worked well since our founding. My opinion this is nothing more than a bunch of disgruntled blue states that didn't get what they wanted so they are throwing a hissy fit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top