The effort to have the American President elected by the popular vote gains another state…..
In case you arent’t aware?
The American President is NOT elected by the popular vote…..
Both George W. Bush and Donald Trump LOST the popular vote and went on to become President by voting of representatives in state capitals, in what’s called the electoral college…
The people who put tougher this countries basic rules did NOT trust the vote of the people to picl a President….
With this in mind?
There is a slowly mounted effort to get the number of states electoral votes to nullify the elecoral college chosing the President….
You’ll notice that the two guys to benefit from the way the current system works where Republicans….
Trump lost the popular vote by almopst 3 Million votes….
It IS thought that the popular vote advantge will continue to grow for Democrats in the future….
Connecticut is the 11th state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.…
While the effort has gathered steam…Therec are those (Republicans in particular) who will argue in the courts that the compact MIST BE approved by Congress….That may defeat the effort in the end….
On Saturday, Connecticut’s General Assembly approved a bill that would make the state the 11th to adopt the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, and the first since the 2016 election. Once enough other states have signed on, the bill would bind a state’s electoral-college votes — seven, in Connecticut’s case — to the candidate who wins the most raw votes in a presidential election. Governor Dannel Malloy is expected to sign it into law.
It’s another small step on the way to what advocates hope will turn into major election reform.
The electoral college is one of the very worst features of American democracy, a vestigial mechanism that effectively reduces presidential contests to a few swing states. Like so much of our political system, it bestows disproportionate power to rural America. And, also like so much of our political system, it has taken on a deeply partisan cast. Democrats, increasingly clustered together in cities, have particular reason to loathe the electoral college of late: it has helped crown two popular-vote losers, George W. Bush and Donald Trump, in the 21st century. Republicans, losers of six of the last seven popular-votes, are more than happy to keep things as they are…..
As I understand it this compact is indeed moving very slowly, and the states which have ratified it so far are I believe well short of the minimum necessary 270 Electoral Votes needed to give it effect. (The next Census, even if fairly and competently run, is likely to reduce the Electoral Votes of states supporting this measure, while increasing those of the states which won’t pass it.)
While worth doing for the sake of principle and for the future, this is a long way from being a practical answer for the next couple of elections.
It would help if red states – not just blue and purple would support it.
I was against this effort for last several years….
But I am beginning to warm to it….
Republicans being able to subvert the will of most Americxans TWICE seems to point to something wrong in the way we pick American President’s….
The fine print is that some believe Congress DOES have to approve this….
If so?
The effort will NOT succeed …
But could serve as a wake up call for the ways things have gone in last sveral decades…
1. It is factually inaccurate to continue to suggest a majority of American voters voted for Gore or Hillary Clinton. They received a plurality of the vote. Nobody received a majority in those elections. Had better, smarter campaigns been run by the losing candidates in those elections, the EC would not have mattered In both cases, the people who defeated them had received a larger percent of the national popular vote than Bill Clinton whom easily won the Electoral College in 1992 despite receiving just 43% of the national popular vote.
2. It is a valid argument to suggest the Electoral College be done away with and a President should be elected by the national popular vote in which, in effect, the vote of one single American is equal to the vote of any other American. A reasonable proposition indeed.
3. If this were to ever happen though, the way we elect Presidents would change dramatically and in a way that would upset everything that Democrats suggest they are for. The candidate who spent the most money (which would have been Hillary Clinton last time, but would typically be the Republican) would almost always certainly win.
In person campaigning would decrease dramatically, especially in areas of the country that are not part of a candidate’s “base” and the impact of negative television ads and over the airwaves campaigning in general would skyrocket more than already exists.
Those who reasonably want to eliminate the Electoral College should also heed the warning, “be careful what you wish for.”
It IS FACTUALLY correct to continue to say that Hillary Clinton received a MAJORITY of the vote for President in November 2016…..
Hillary Clinton received 65,853,516 votes….48.5% of the total vote….
Donald Trump received 62,884,825 votes…46.4% of the total vote….
You can contiune to try to split hairs CG….
But the basic IS?
Clinton WON the popular vote….
The arguments FOR the electoral system to remain are know and have merit….
BUT…
They counter the basic idea and system that exists for the election of EVERY OTHER el;ected offical in this country….
That is?
The person who receives the MOST votes wins regardless….
You continue to now know the English language definition of “majority.”
to “not” know. Sorry for the typo. I won’t blame a device though.
Yet once again, I suggest that James consult the Constitution that I’m sure he carries around in his coat pocket just like Mr. Khan. If not, he knows who would be glad to provide him a copy. Not that it’s very difficult to find on line (from either academic, government or conservative/patriotic sites). My own copy (courtesy of the Dept of Homeland Security, U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services) sits right next to my computer, duplicating one inside the World Almanac that also sits there.
While the interstate compact is an ingenious way of avoiding the need for Congressional action or a new amendment (by working within the existing Constitution), there are two ways to amend the document itself, both specified in Article V.
(1) 2/3 of each House of Congress passes the proposed amendment, which becomes effective with the approval of 3/4 of the state legislatures.
(2) 2/3 of the state legislatures petition Congress to call a constitutional convention whose work similarly takes effect, as specified by Congress, either (a) upon the ratification of 3/4 of the state legislatures, or (b) upon the ratification by special state conventions called for this purpose by 3/4 of the states.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Five_of_the_United_States_Constitution
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html
https://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A5.html
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlev
With 50 States and 435 voting Representatives, the corresponding numbers today would be:
38 – 3/4 of the states
34 – 2/3 of the states
290 – 2/3 of the U.S. House of Representatives
67 – 2/3 of the U.S. Senate