good gawd. endorsing the tyranny of the majority
yes,for CONGRESS -the legislative branch.
states need the same representation/say for the EXECUTIVE BRANCH -POTUS as well
Maine votes out electoral college
- Thread starter evince
- Start date
states need the same representation/say for the EXECUTIVE BRANCH -POTUS as well
we all need rotating regional primaries -so Iowa and NH do not constantly have the first votes
2020 is much more front-loaded with larger states like CA having early primaries. That should eliminate many of the weaker candidates and narrow it down early.
They drew straws and it was not open to all citizens.
Why don't we let the parents do that?
MSgt
A Leader of Airmen
How many murders are you personally affected by?
A direct democracy is like a New England town meeting. Citizens come together to debate and vote on issues. They don't have elected representatives to make those decisions.
MSgt
A Leader of Airmen
Regression of the Senate, prohibition, electoral votes for the State of DC. But, yes, there have also been positive changes.
Still, a feature that has only ever benefited Federalists, Whigs and Republicans at the expense of Tammany Hall (Burr) and Democrats should probably never be touched. Clearly it has stood-up to every test.
It will take a big movement to change the Constitution. We are too busy arguing on JPP to engage in such drudgery.
What was really interesting is the way the electoral originally was designed so that electors voted for two people for president and the person with the most (if a majority) became president and the person in second place became VP. Jefferson was running against John Adams and came in second and became the VP. Jefferson and Burr (same party) tied. The 12th amendment changed that so that electors cast separate votes for president and vp.
Its no use. Ya don't think this will go the courts where there is a SCOTUS precedent that declares that no STATE has the authority to add any more regulations than exists in the Constitution when a state is charged with regulating any federal election? In other words.....no state can do away with the requirements for federal elections nor can they add anything extra than is preexisting in the constitution. Just more noise from the left.....just ask the good folks from the state of Ark.
Simply read the SCOTUS decision and precedent establishing case U.S Term Limits Inc., v. Ray Thornton 514 U.S. 779 (1995). This case involves a state attempting to change the rules concerning the election and term limits of US congressmen and women......it clearly states that no state has the right to deny BALLOT ACCESS in a federal election by adding extra conditions to those found to exist in the Untied States Constitution. Read it and weep.
You didn't tell us how the direct election would work. Would a majority be required. If not, would there be a runoff. Would there be a minimum percentage of votes required to become president?
cawacko
Well-known member
Not that my opinion matters but while I’m not tied to Iowa and New Hampshire having to be the first two I get and support why they do it. To me having the big states so early makes it harder for underdog candidates to compete
Nothing can be added or taken away by any STATE in consideration of any federal election. If it does not exist in the Constitution no state can add extra requirements for any federal office, such as placing term limits and barring certain people from Ballot ACCESS.....or declaring that STATE TAX RETURNS are required......nor can they ignore anything in the Constitution without going through the proper procedure of ADMENDING the constitution....which requires a 75% ratification process from all the states combined.
countryboy
Verified User
That has nothing to do with the electoral college. You should try reading a history book, geez.
countryboy
Verified User
Lol.
countryboy
Verified User
Fixed it for you.
cawacko
Well-known member
“A fair and just society should not have presidents routinely elected by the minority”
Going back to 1992 only three or the seven presidential winners won with a majority of the vote. That would qualify as a unfair and unjust society. How do we address that? Allow only two candidates to run? Have continual runoffs until someone gets a majority?
Going back to 1992 only three or the seven presidential winners won with a majority of the vote. That would qualify as a unfair and unjust society. How do we address that? Allow only two candidates to run? Have continual runoffs until someone gets a majority?
True, lesser known candidates will not have the same chance to develop name recognition; especially because there are so many of them.
I think the two parties have established Iowa and NH as the first states to keep the others from jumping ahead.
The Constitution does not need to be changed, National Popular Vote Interstate Compact would work.