Originally Posted by BRussell
You know very well that it's screwing over the dominant party in one state.
How is getting a number of electors proportional to the number of votes you received being screwed over? How is allocating electors by Congressional district and if your district votes for X for president, you have that elector vote for X?
It's not a civil rights issue, it's just simply not going to happen unless both parties, in different states, have an agreement that ensures neither side gets screwed.
Apparently it isn't a civil rights issue for YOU. I'm personally a bit tired of my vote not counting due to the coast leaning so far in one direction. It isn't about a side being screwed, it is about what is right.
At the current time, the Democrats are supporting an approach that has just such an agreement, and Republicans are not, i.e., Republicans see it as a way to game the system and Democrats see it as a way to genuinely reform the system.
Apparently you haven't read your approach very carefully. It is just winner take all under another name.States joining the compact will continue to award their electoral votes in their current manner until the compact has been joined by states representing a controlling majority of the Electoral College (currently 270 electoral votes). At that point, all of the electoral votes of the member states would be cast for the winner of the national popular vote in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. With the national popular vote winner sure to have a decisive majority in the Electoral College, he or she would automatically win the Electoral College and therefore the presidency.
Your compact says nothing about representational electors and voting. What it does is simply rename winner take all and apply it at the national level. As an example using this compact George Bush would have claimed all of California's electoral votes in 2004 even though he lost the state.
I also love the concept whereby having to do nothing until everyone agrees to do something is "real reform" whereas actually doing something is... wrong.
Let me run your little compact through say... Florida 2000. Think on that with the terms.. secretary of state.....must report to other states by a specific deadline....finally...the compact member states would give their electoral votes to the candidate with the greatest number of popular votes, even if no candidate has an absolute majority.
This would be hilarious to imagine on a national level. I can imagine the fun in future elections with Democrats pissing and moaning about how they were cheated out of an election due to the electoral votes of states the Republican candidate didn't even win, being forced to go for him due to a majority of the votes being won in those 30 states.. where we know they must cheat, and rig the machines, and we could have proven it except for the due date...etc.
This reminds me exactly of the "reforms" all Democrats wanted right after 2000 with no more paper ballots, all electronic voting and then four years later screaming that anybody who didn't want a paper trail was an idiot.
The humor makes me spit milk. Bush tricked them into Iraq. Republicans tricked them into electronic voting machines. I have no doubt when a Republican wins getting 44-45% of the vote and has states turning over electors that the candidate didn't even win... oh the hysterics there will have me slapping my knee.
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman
Murdoch knows that if a Democrat is elected president, he will have to reorganize his media outlets for it. Believe me, if a Democrat gets elected, Fox News will change overnight. They have contingency plans, believe me. Hannity and O'Reilly will be booted out and Rivera and Donahue will take there place (or talking heads of that liberal slant).
I had read of this months ago, I just can't find the link right now...
Ah, Time magazine mused this subject in March 2008...Fox on the Run
Dude, enjoy the dreams! I've heard that Time is going to ponder this reorganization a little more right after they finish their latest round of layoffs and right after they find the space from announcing all things Murdock as number one in ratings.
I don't care where Fox ranks ratings-wise but to suggest it would bring about their demise is just a wet dream. I've heard Rush Limbaugh was just booted off the air and replaced with Randy Rhoads hoping to bring up the ratings.
Originally Posted by ShawnJ
I was gonna say that he sounded like a Hillary supporter.
Dude I am a Hillary supporter. I'm a white, middle aged female feminist!
Originally Posted by groverat
Primary elections must be fair to some extent. They cannot discriminate based on race, etc..., but they are not a matter of fundamental right. The DNC could decide tomorrow to do away with all election ideas and just select its candidate from within its own ranks using a committee of powerful Democrats. That would be political suicide and it would be challenged in the courts, but it is within their rights to do so (as they have done in the past).
If it wasn't, do you really think they could get away with the Michigan compromise they pulled yesterday, in which the Rules & Bylaws committee used subjective data to allocate Michigan's delegates at the August convention?
California could change its system in a legal sense, but it probably wouldn't stand legal challenges. That's how the legal process works.
Grove dude... you just don't get it.
You seem to believe that there is some magical foundation for insuring the electors are decided by popular vote. There isn't. The basis for it isn't quite as recent as the party changes with regard to voting, but it was only 2000 when the Florida legislature was going to determine how its 25 electoral votes were going to go to insure they would be included in the electoral college. Just do some reading. States are free to determine how their electoral votes are determined JUST LIKE PARTIES.
Here, let me help you.Another method of choosing electors is selection by the state legislature. It was used by a majority of the states in both 1792 and 1800, and half of the states in 1812. One of the reasons that most United States history textbooks don't start reporting the popular vote until the election of 1824 is because more than a quarter of all the states used legislative choice in all prior elections; there simply was no popular vote in those states. Even in 1824, when Andrew Jackson famously accused John Quincy Adams and Henry Clay of a corrupt bargain because he lost in spite of having pluralities of both the popular and electoral votes, a full quarter of the states (6 of 24) did not hold popular elections for President and Vice President; instead, those six state legislatures choose the electors that year. By the following election, only Delaware and South Carolina continued to use legislative choice. Delaware ended its practice the following election (1832). South Carolina held on to legislative choice until it became the first state to secede in December 1860.
Legislative appointment made three more appearances on the electoral stage: first, in 1864, Nevada, having been made a state only a few days previously, had no choice but to appoint. Then, in 1868, the newly reconstructed state of Florida appointed its electors, having been readmitted too late to hold elections. Finally, in 1876, the legislature of the newly admitted state of Colorado used legislative choice due to a lack of time and money to hold an election. It was also a possibility in the 2000 election. Had the recounts continued, the Florida legislature was prepared to appoint the Republican slate of electors to avoid missing the federal deadline for choosing electors.
The Constitution gives the power to the state legislatures to decide how electors are chosen, and it is easier and cheaper for a state legislature to simply appoint a slate of electors than to create a legislative framework for holding elections to determine the electors. As noted above, the two situations in which legislative choice has been used since the Civil War have both been because there was not enough time or money to prepare for an election. However, appointment by state legislature has a serious flaw: legislatures can deadlock more easily than the electorate. In fact, this is precisely what happened in 1789, when New York failed to appoint any electors.
All that is different is the name of the club. The game is the same. The legislature can pull names out of a hat if it wants to do so. It is legal and would withstand EVERY legal challenge. The very compact BRussell is discussing has the legislatures agreeing by compact to award all the electoral votes of their states for the winner of the popular vote, even if that candidate lost in their state, heck even if that candidate didn't record a single VOTE in that state. You are simply wrong on this in the worst possible way.