Electoral System "Workaround"

[Ben]

A growing number of commie pinko states are banding together on a workaround to the electoral system. Their plan is to allocate all their electoral votes to whoever wins the "popular" election nationally (vs each individual state's popular election numbers).

I don't think this will pass the constitution test in the high courts. Am I wrong?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/05/10/blue-states-rally-to-upend-electoral-college-with-addition-connecticut.html


I guess another question (legality aside) is from the practical standpoint, would it make much difference considering the states involved? If it were a national thing that said Idaho, for example, would have had to vote for Hillary Clinton as well, even though the Idaho state population voted for Trump, that would be a clear manipulation of our system. If California does it just for itself, does it make a difference?

Just an academic question on my part, because don't touch our freakin' system.

[Perd Hapley]

I don't recall the Constitution's wording, but it does seem egregiously unfair to the voters. The majority of voters in Connecticut (or wherever) voted for candidate X, but the state's electors are going to be ordered to vote for candidate Y? Is that what democracy looks like?

On the other hand, it would be hilarious to see what happens when a Republican wins the popular vote, and a bunch of blue states are forced to change their votes. A whole lot of "faithless electors" that day, I'd imagine.

[230RN]

deleted by poster

[Fly320s]

On the other hand, it would be hilarious to see what happens when a Republican wins the popular vote, and a bunch of blue states are forced to change their votes. A whole lot of "faithless electors" that day, I'd imagine.

Yep, the old "careful what you wish for" warning.  I wish more politicians and people would think about how a law will be used by their enemies before they vote for it.

[Ben]

Yep, the old "careful what you wish for" warning.  I wish more politicians and people would think about how a law will be used by their enemies before they vote for it.

Sometimes I do, sometimes I don't [cough] Harry Reid [/cough] 

Though sadly, Trump was trying to do the "simple majority" thing himself not too long ago. These kinds of "expedient shortcuts" will always come back to bite people in the ass, though the people who start them are often long retired or dead.

Every day I'm more impressed with the Founding Fathers.

[French G.]

I hope they succeed and soon. I want to see CT and Cali vote Trump 2020. There would not be enough buildings to jump off of.

[DittoHead]

I don't think this will pass the constitution test in the high courts. Am I wrong?

I don't have the desire to discuss the merits of popular/electoral voting today (been there, done that) but in previous discussions and articles I've always been told that states are free to allocate electors however they please. Winner take all, proportionally, flip of the coin, or whatever they want which would include binding that allocation to something else like the national popular vote.

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.

[Scout26]

I would love to see a state like CA do this, and then watch the Epic backpedaling when Trump wins the 2020 National Popular vote.


 

 

[brimic]

Every day I'm more impressed with the Founding Fathers.

They understood human nature better than most.

[just Warren]

What are y'all complaining about? The left has something that will produce unity in this country and you're criticizing it?

Some patriots you are!