alfa164 wrote:

[ the current system does just the opposite: it allows the minority party to "run up the tally" in sparsely-populated states, without bothering to appeal to voters who make up the majority of the USA.

You mean independents? Because they're the ones who decide elections:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/part ... ation.aspx

Want to win elections? Bring better ideas to the table and stop focusing on changing the rules to suit your agenda.

Kent350787 wrote:

voters in smaller states get an amplified say over legislation.

There is no good reasons to undemocratically amplify their Presidiential votes as well via the EC.

If you feel this is unfair, write your Congressmen and tell them to propose an amendment to do away with Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution.

Until then, bring better ideas to the polls.

EA CO AS wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

voters in smaller states get an amplified say over legislation.

There is no good reasons to undemocratically amplify their Presidiential votes as well via the EC.

If you feel this is unfair, write your Congressmen and tell them to propose an amendment to do away with Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution.

Until then, bring better ideas to the polls.

The poster is from Australia - doesn't have a Congressman.

EA CO AS wrote:

Until then, bring better ideas to the polls.

It's a cute platitude. But as long as politicians get to pick their voters, and not vice versa, it's fairly meaningless.

Aaron747 wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Kent350787 wrote:

voters in smaller states get an amplified say over legislation.

There is no good reasons to undemocratically amplify their Presidiential votes as well via the EC.

If you feel this is unfair, write your Congressmen and tell them to propose an amendment to do away with Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution.

Until then, bring better ideas to the polls.

The poster is from Australia - doesn't have a Congressman.

Our Senate is even less democratic than that of the USA. A Tasmanian senator is elected on 1/4 of the votes of a NSW senator.

But our system doesn’t compound this with head of state, nor do any proposals for an elected head of state.

In contrast to my family in MA, whose votes are discounted on both counts.

The Senate is already the States' house, where voters in smaller states get an amplified say over legislation.

There is no good reasons to undemocratically amplify their Presidiential votes as well via the EC.[/quote]

As things stand now 18% of the population control 52% of the Senate.

TangoandCash wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Actually, it’s the Drmocrats trying to change the system in their favor—inefficient distribution of Democrat voters is their problem, not the Constitutional rules.

Yes, get enough California Democrats to move to Wyoming where they can take advantage of the Electoral College giving Wyoming disproportional power.

I was just thinking that. All these "liberals" moving from Democratic states to Republican states could bring sanity back to those Republican places. Hopefully sooner rather than later. But, again, there are those states where Republicans can simply throw out the will of the people...

NIKV69 wrote:

[quote="bhill" The popular vote works in ever other Democracy on the planet...but not in the US?
..

Not sure about all these other democracies you are talking about but the US needs the electoral college or small states would never have a voice in the general. Which is why it's place and not going anywhere[/quote]

They already do where is counts..in the Senate. Look how ONE Senator from lil Kentucky fucked up the whole "advice and consent" portion of the Constitution.

Aesma wrote:

The issue is so evident because you have a presidential system. So everyone in the country votes for the president, yet every vote doesn't count, that's an issue.

Many democracies don't have presidents, if they follow the Westminster system all votes aren't equal either, but it's less evident. Usually the winner is still the party with the most votes, it's just that it gets disproportionate representation in the legislature. A problem the US also has of course, it's a feature of first by the post elections. Except in the US the party with less votes manages to get more representation than it should through gerrymandering.

Then you have proportional representation like in many EU countries (and Israel), which is objectively the most democratic. And has the added feature of forcing parties to compromise, because getting an outright majority is almost impossible.

If we imagine proportional representation in the US, neither the GOP nor the Dems would get a majority. And these parties would break up, for sure.

Then how does any legislation get passed without a majority?

EA CO AS wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

[ the current system does just the opposite: it allows the minority party to "run up the tally" in sparsely-populated states, without bothering to appeal to voters who make up the majority of the USA.

You mean independents? Because they're the ones who decide elections:

https://news.gallup.com/poll/15370/part ... ation.aspx

Want to win elections? Bring better ideas to the table and stop focusing on changing the rules to suit your agenda.

And, yet, Republicans are doing just that: Changing the rules to stay in power. They have zero ideas other than blame the other side. If Republicans actually spell out what they want, they will never get another independent or moderate vote.

We are at that part of the story, where it currently isn't looking good for the act in terms of congressional action.

https://rollcall.com/2022/07/26/dont-le ... the-count/

The biggest problem is timing, especially in the Senate, since from here on floor time will be mostly given to legislation that the Democrats can politically exploit this fall. Traditionally, send-them-a-message floor votes take priority over good-government nostrums late in election years.

Amy Klobuchar, who chairs the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, has hinted that she will hold August hearings. But that pace would make it hard for the bill to even get to the Senate floor before the ball comes down on New Year’s Eve.

Another potential pitfall, particularly in the House, is that left-wing Democrats may balk at any electoral legislation that does not include new protections for voting rights.

casinterest wrote:

We are at that part of the story, where it currently isn't looking good for the act in terms of congressional action.

The best thing that could happen is for the Senate to create a bill in August or September, and give it over to reconciliation with the House. Then the Jan 6 committee could create their own version, also for reconciliation. Then if they are similar enough (which is expected), they could finish reconciliation before the end of the year, and Biden could sign.

That requires Congress to work together, which may not be very likely. But this would have strong popular support, and now is the time to do it.

The concern about governors overriding the popular vote, is something the states could deal with internally. I don't think any governor would survive that, and the objection process in Congressional certification would also block it.

Avatar2go wrote:

casinterest wrote:

We are at that part of the story, where it currently isn't looking good for the act in terms of congressional action.

The best thing that could happen is for the Senate to create a bill in August or September, and give it over to reconciliation with the House. Then the Jan 6 committee could create their own version, also for reconciliation. Then if they are similar enough (which is expected), they could finish reconciliation before the end of the year, and Biden could sign.

That requires Congress to work together, which may not be very likely. But this would have strong popular support, and now is the time to do it.

The concern about governors overriding the popular vote, is something the states could deal with internally. I don't think any governor would survive that, and the objection process in Congressional certification would also block it.

The issue is that there are a lot of items missing in terms of voter access, but i saw an article the other day where some people are working to sue the states that are disenfranchising voters with penalties under the 14th amendment,.

https://constitution.findlaw.com/amendm ... ion12.html


Either way, the voting rights issue may surface in September as the Democrats try to hammer the GOP on the laws provisions,

Avatar2go wrote:

The best thing that could happen is for the Senate to create a bill in August or September, and give it over to reconciliation with the House. Then the Jan 6 committee could create their own version, also for reconciliation. Then if they are similar enough (which is expected), they could finish reconciliation before the end of the year, and Biden could sign.

Regular reconciliation (aka conference committee report) still requires 60 votes to pass filibuster in the Senate; it's only budget reconciliation bills that can pass without being filibustered (but they must meet the Byrd Rule).

For something to be included in budget reconciliation, it has to be tied to the budget.

einsteinboricua wrote:

Regular reconciliation (aka conference committee report) still requires 60 votes to pass filibuster in the Senate; it's only budget reconciliation bills that can pass without being filibustered (but they must meet the Byrd Rule).

For something to be included in budget reconciliation, it has to be tied to the budget.

I'm thinking that apart from the Trumpettes, the Republican Senate would still support the bill sufficiently to submit for reconciliation. Then as others pointed out, the danger would be that the Democratic House would try to attach voting rights legislation, which would be filibustered in the Senate.

I support that legislation but it shouldn't be attached to Electoral Count Act reform. They really are separate issues, although both important. Better to get the reform, than neither reform nor voting rights.

The "corageous" Republicans who voted with Democrats to pass this bill have been primaried.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/pol ... 109653002/

They have nothing to lose since they have already lost to the extremist MAGA wing of their party.

This thread has me thinking. If the presidential electors were selected on a proportional basis the way most of the primaries select convention delegates, what would the electoral college count have been? Also, if members of the House of Representatives were chosen on the same basis state by state, what would the makeup of the house be? This is something that I am going to research and do the math on, because I think the results would be very interesting.

One thing that I am curious about is if the republicans are the ones who always win the popular vote, would the democrats even be pushing this? One other thing, if this were to pass, would more republicans living in blue states come out and vote, now that their vote actually matters more? And if so, could this actually cost the democratic party the popular vote going forward?

Another thing I wonder? Would this country just be better off ditching the current system and going to a westminster style system? I am not advocating it but I am curious as to what people think about that?

apodino wrote:

This thread has me thinking. If the presidential electors were selected on a proportional basis the way most of the primaries select convention delegates, what would the electoral college count have been?

Analyses have shown that the proportional electoral college selection doesn't often change the results. This is because of the way election districting is done in the US, as well as the distribution of population between states, and that every state automatically gets plus-2 electors for their Senate seats.

Here are the proportional electoral college results from the last 3 elections (270 needed to win):

2020 Biden 277, Trump 261
2016 Trump 267, Clinton 265, election goes to House
2012 Obama 281, Romney 257

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/blogs/p/ ... y-to-do-it

https://www.270towin.com/alternative-el ... n-methods/

Avatar2go wrote:

apodino wrote:

This thread has me thinking. If the presidential electors were selected on a proportional basis the way most of the primaries select convention delegates, what would the electoral college count have been?

Analyses have shown that the proportional electoral college selection doesn't often change the results. This is because of the way election districting is done in the US, as well as the distribution of population between states, and that every state automatically gets plus-2 electors for their Senate seats.

Here are the proportional electoral college results from the last 3 elections (270 needed to win):

2020 Biden 277, Trump 261
2016 Trump 267, Clinton 265, election goes to House
2012 Obama 281, Romney 257

https://www.paloaltoonline.com/blogs/p/ ... y-to-do-it

https://www.270towin.com/alternative-el ... n-methods/

Great find on that. Interestingly enough, in 2016, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and Evan MacMullan would have all received electoral votes under the proportional system. I wasn't going to take this into account when i did my own analysis, but this is a reminder that I need to do so. One thing I am curious about in 2016. Would the House have voted for Donald Trump, or would there have been enough GOP congressman who would have voted for someone else and thus some backroom deals would have to be cut?

apodino wrote:

Great find on that. Interestingly enough, in 2016, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and Evan MacMullan would have all received electoral votes under the proportional system. I wasn't going to take this into account when i did my own analysis, but this is a reminder that I need to do so. One thing I am curious about in 2016. Would the House have voted for Donald Trump, or would there have been enough GOP congressman who would have voted for someone else and thus some backroom deals would have to be cut?

It seems clear that with the state delegations being dominated by Republicans in 2016, that Trump would have prevailed in a House contingency election. They can only choose from among the top three contenders in the general election.

Avatar2go wrote:

apodino wrote:

Great find on that. Interestingly enough, in 2016, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and Evan MacMullan would have all received electoral votes under the proportional system. I wasn't going to take this into account when i did my own analysis, but this is a reminder that I need to do so. One thing I am curious about in 2016. Would the House have voted for Donald Trump, or would there have been enough GOP congressman who would have voted for someone else and thus some backroom deals would have to be cut?

It seems clear that with the state delegations being dominated by Republicans in 2016, that Trump would have prevailed in a House contingency election. They can only choose from among the top three contenders in the general election.

Actually the constitution says top 5. Be that as it may, I did forget the part about each state delegation only getting one vote total. Trump would have easily won.

apodino wrote:

Actually the constitution says top 5. Be that as it may, I did forget the part about each state delegation only getting one vote total. Trump would have easily won.

The original language of Constitution was changed by the 12th Amendment to reform the Electoral College process. The electoral college votes for President and Vice President were separated, as were their contingency elections, to House and Senate. The contingency candidates were limited to top 3 for President and top 2 for Vice President. And the qualifications for Vice President were set to the same as for President.

Here is a good history of the electoral college process, and why it was changed. Also some discussion of modern proposed changes.

https://sgp.fas.org/crs/misc/R40504.pdf

The House today passed their own reforms to the Electoral Count Act, to prevent abuse in Presidential elections. They declined to vote on the Senate version passed in July. The two bills will now have to be reconciled. It's expected that due to time constraints, they will avoid the formal committee process and instead combine the language.

The Senate bill has broader bipartisan support. The House bill is disfavored by Republicans due to the authorship of Liz Cheney, and considered by them as excessively intrusive.

Here are the differences which have to be resolved:

1. Senate requires 20% of members in each house of Congress to lodge an objection to electoral count certification. House requires 33%.

2. Both bills create an expedited judicial tribunal to adjudicate disputes regarding electors. Appeals would go to the Supreme Court.

3. Both bills permit only slates of electors submitted by the governor of a state, after selection by the state legislature. The Senate allows a candidate to sue to dispute state actions. The House allows a federal court order, followed by court appointment of another state official to fulfill the submission role.

4. Both bills clarify "Failed Election" to require "extraordinary & catastrophic events" to be declared by a state. The House bill also requires federal court supervision and approval of the alternate election.

5. Both bills clarify that the Vice President has no authority to alter the certification of an election by Congress, serving only in an administrative capacity as chair of the session.

6. Both bills clarify that in a disputed election, both candidates must be given access to federal transition funds, but only prior to certification.

7. Both bills prohibit retroactively changing laws that govern electors, after the election has occurred.

The House bill then goes beyond the Senate bill in a few areas:

a. Extends the date by which states must submit electors, to allow more time for resolution of conflict in state courts.

b. Permits the courts to fine or sanction plaintiffs who file frivolous or bad-faith actions against election results.

c. Restricts and defines precisely the manner in which electoral votes can be counted, both at the state level and during the joint certification session of Congress.

It's clear that the House is less trusting than the Senate when it comes to ways someone might try to manipulate an election by the electoral process.

Let's hope Congress can get this done, and not quibble over the details. It's too important to not fix before the next Congress, or the 2024 election.

My biggest fear is that MAGA Republican led states have already stolen power for a generation or more. MAGA Republican led states have passed legislation making it almost impossible for anyone outside the MAGAs to hold office or object to any election. MAGA Republicans wanted a one-party system and they are close to getting it. The parts about taking elections through the court system to SCOTUS is a joke right now, since a majority of courts and even SCOTUS are under the thumb of MAGAs. It is not looking good for our republic.

Agreed that the MAGA's will be with us for a generation at least. Like the Tea Party, they are effectively a separate party acting within the Republican party.

The ideal case would be for the Republicans to expel them, as they could not stand on their own. But given that did not happen with the Tea Party, it likely won't here either.

The only real defense is for Democrats and mainstream Republicans to mount good candidates, across the board, at the state and federal levels. We see that happening to a certain extent now. Just have to keep working on that. And for both groups to keep pounding on the MAGAs to expose them for what they are.

Trump is actually doing a pretty good job of hammering himself right now. People will get tired of excusing him. There was very little push back on the appellate court ruling yesterday. Other prominent MAGAs are doing the same thing to themselves.

It was funny that in New Hampshire, the MAGA candidate Don Bolduc made the stolen election a central theme of his primary campaign, but the next day, renounced it for the general election campaign. That's a sign that MAGAs know they are vulnerable on that issue, but people will see through that kind of reversal, except the most indoctrinated.

Avatar2go wrote:

Agreed that the MAGA's will be with us for a generation at least. Like the Tea Party, they are effectively a separate party acting within the Republican party.

The ideal case would be for the Republicans to expel them, as they could not stand on their own. But given that did not happen with the Tea Party, it likely won't here either.

The only real defense is for Democrats and mainstream Republicans to mount good candidates, across the board, at the state and federal levels. We see that happening to a certain extent now. Just have to keep working on that. And for both groups to keep pounding on the MAGAs to expose them for what they are.

Trump is actually doing a pretty good job of hammering himself right now. People will get tired of excusing him. There was very little push back on the appellate court ruling yesterday. Other prominent MAGAs are doing the same thing to themselves.

It was funny that in New Hampshire, the MAGA candidate Don Bolduc made the stolen election a central theme of his primary campaign, but the next day, renounced it for the general election campaign. That's a sign that MAGAs know they are vulnerable on that issue, but people will see through that kind of reversal, except the most indoctrinated.

The problem I see is that main stream (Eisenhower and Nixon and Ford and Cheney) Republicans will go the way of Perot. They love the idea of multiple (right wing) parties but will be shut down because "leadership" says no.

MAGA Republicans are like Borg on Star Trek. As long as you go along (by force or by will) you are fine. Otherwise, you MUST CONFORM or else you are the enemy and will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. All your base and all that.

I like the World Series/NBA Finals concept. First to 26/50 states wins. Each person in a state votes and whichever candidate wins the states popular vote, that state is now 1 state vote for the candidate. Ties are broken by the House of Representatives, each rep casting 1 vote to break the tie, up to 435.

Plain and simple. Still by the people as well as by the states.

TWA772LR wrote:

I like the World Series/NBA Finals concept. First to 26/50 states wins. Each person in a state votes and whichever candidate wins the states popular vote, that state is now 1 state vote for the candidate. Ties are broken by the House of Representatives, each rep casting 1 vote to break the tie, up to 435.

Plain and simple. Still by the people as well as by the states.

So, let every vote count? It almost sounds like a democracy. That is a great idea! Let every vote count and not just the votes one side wants.