Dems submit bill to end the electoral college

[Peter1469]

Dems submit bill to end the electoral college (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/04/nolte-tyrannical-democrats-introduce-bill-to-kill-electoral-college/)

Someone should let them know that would take a Constitutional Amendment.


Desperate to bring the Tyranny of the Majority to our representative democracy, on the first day Democrats assumed control of the House of Representatives, Rep. Steve Cohen (D-TN) submitted a bill to kill the electoral college.
“In two presidential elections since 2000, including the most recent one in which Hillary Clinton won 2.8 million more votes than her opponent, the winner of the popular vote did not win the election because of the distorting effect of the outdated Electoral College,” Cohen said in a press release (https://cohen.house.gov/media-center/press-releases/congressman-cohen-introduces-constitutional-amendments). “Americans expect and deserve the winner of the popular vote to win office. More than a century ago, we amended our Constitution to provide for the direct election of U.S. Senators. It is past time to directly elect our President and Vice President.”


Democrat frustration over losing the presidency when they won the most votes is certainly justified. But it is also their own fault. If these triggered snowflakes would get over their Red State prejudices and dare to live amongst us, that influence might flip enough states. But they refuse to. These snobby bigots find Middle America icky, so they cower together in coastal and big city bubbles.

[Captain Obvious]

And do what, direct democracy?

Or just automatic votes for states who win them?

The latter wouldn't have prevented Trump from being elected.

Smells like dumbfuckery.

[Peter1469]

And do what, direct democracy?

Or just automatic votes for states who win them?

The latter wouldn't have prevented Trump from being elected.

Smells like dumbfuckery.
I don't know what the bill says; if I see a link to it I can update the thread.

[Captain Obvious]

I don't know what the bill says; if I see a link to it I can update the thread.

The comment in your quote says something like "voters expect the prez who wins the popular vote to win" or something like that so... yeah, tear up the constitution I guess.

[nathanbforrest45]

I may be misinformed but isn't the Electoral College part of the Constitution?

https://www.usa.gov/election

Did I miss an Amendment somewhere?

[Captdon]

And do what, direct democracy?

Or just automatic votes for states who win them?

The latter wouldn't have prevented Trump from being elected.

Smells like dumbfuckery.

President of the United States. All of them. One state, one vote.

[Captain Obvious]

President of the United States. All of them. One state, one vote.

Well, good luck with that

[stjames1_53]

The dems are wasting taxpayer monies on such nonsense as this. Don't they have more important things to do rather than alter a political race to their favor?
It worked just fine for both Bush's, Clinton twice and Obama the same ..............so now it's not working for them, it's time to change the rules of the game .............stupid asses

[Common]

Never pass the senate or trumps veto pen, the dems are going to send in dozens and dozens of bills, its not going to be what they send or how many, but how many actually pass both chambers and get past the pen

[stjames1_53]

Never pass the senate or trumps veto pen, the dems are going to send in dozens and dozens of bills, its not going to be what they send or how many, but how many actually pass both chambers and get past the pen

wasting taxpayer monies and time.....................niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice job, dems

[nathanbforrest45]

wasting taxpayer monies and time.....................niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice job, dems
And they will blame it all on Trump for not "compromising" with them

[Peter1469]

I may be misinformed but isn't the Electoral College part of the Constitution?

https://www.usa.gov/election

Did I miss an Amendment somewhere?
It is there. It allows the States to determine the manner that they pick electors.

[Lummy]

It will fail.

[Green Arrow]

Breitbart rots the brain. Cohen’s bill is a constitutional amendment.

[DGUtley]

A constitutional amendment takes quite a long time.

[hanger4]

Cohen has also introduced a Constitutional amendment to limit the pardon power of the President. Neither will come close to the 2/3rds majority required to pass both houses of Congress.

[hanger4]

Never pass the senate or trumps veto pen, the dems are going to send in dozens and dozens of bills, its not going to be what they send or how many, but how many actually pass both chambers and get past the penA President doesn't have veto power over Constitutional amendments.

[Common]

wasting taxpayer monies and time.....................niiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiice job, dems
The both do that, the republican house sent bills to harry reid and every one was turned down. It will be the same with the democrats.

Harry Reid recently in a interview said he does not regret using the nuclear option. Neither do we Harry were glad you used it, it gave us the Supreme court for 20 yrs or more

[Peter1469]

Breitbart rots the brain. Cohen’s bill is a constitutional amendment.

Ad hom attacks aren't helpful. How about a link about the bill. Like this one (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/new-dem-bill-aims-to-eliminate-electoral-college/ar-BBRNmvZ), or this one (https://ktla.com/2019/01/05/tennessee-congressman-proposes-eliminating-electoral-college-preventing-presidents-from-pardoning-themselves/).

[MMC]

Never pass the senate or trumps veto pen, the dems are going to send in dozens and dozens of bills, its not going to be what they send or how many, but how many actually pass both chambers and get past the pen

Oh so not much, huh?

[MMC]

Dems submit bill to end the electoral college (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/04/nolte-tyrannical-democrats-introduce-bill-to-kill-electoral-college/)

Someone should let them know that would take a Constitutional Amendment.



Cohen knows his Constitutional amendment is failing. So he had time to waste before he and the rest of the Demorats start investigating Trump for everything.

[countryboy]

Breitbart rots the brain. Cohen’s bill is a constitutional amendment.

Lol, you cannot legislate amendments to the Constitution.

[Peter1469]

Cohen knows his Constitutional amendment is failing. So he had time to waste before he and the rest of the Demorats start investigating Trump for everything.
The Dems are focusing on a lot of stuff that will never pass. That is good.

[Hoosier8]

In 2015 the Washintoncompost made the claim that the electoral college favored Clinton.

Eliminating the EC has been brought up in Congress at least 4 times and never made it out of Congress.

As far as the states go they might get 1/4 but far from the 3/4 they would need.

[MMC]

The Dems are focusing on a lot of stuff that will never pass. That is good.

Its awww-ight.....they are use to failure. :grin:

[countryboy]

In 2015 the Washintoncompost made the claim that the electoral college favored Clinton.

Eliminating the EC has been brought up in Congress at least 4 times and never made it out of Congress.

As far as the states go they might get 1/4 but far from the 3/4 they would need.

Actually, the requirement is 2/3, not 3/4.

[Hoosier8]

Actually, the requirement is 2/3, not 3/4.

3/4 of the states have to approve. 2/3 of congress.

[Captdon]

Well, good luck with that

Nah. It has the same chance as changing the Electoral College. None.

[Captdon]

Never pass the senate or trumps veto pen, the dems are going to send in dozens and dozens of bills, its not going to be what they send or how many, but how many actually pass both chambers and get past the pen

It has to amend the Constitution. 2/3 of each House and 38 states.

[countryboy]

3/4 of the states have to approve. 2/3 of congress.
My mistake, I stand corrected. Thanks. :)

[Green Arrow]

Ad hom attacks aren't helpful. How about a link about the bill. Like this one (https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/new-dem-bill-aims-to-eliminate-electoral-college/ar-BBRNmvZ), or this one (https://ktla.com/2019/01/05/tennessee-congressman-proposes-eliminating-electoral-college-preventing-presidents-from-pardoning-themselves/).
That wasn’t directed at you, but I didn’t make that clear and that was my mistake. I apologize.

Both of those links confirm the bill is a constitutional amendment.

[Green Arrow]

Lol, you cannot legislate amendments to the Constitution.

Yes, you can. Congress can propose amendments provided the amendment gets 2/3 of Congress to approve. At that point it has to be ratified by 2/3rds of the states.

[Kalkin]

Yes, you can. Congress can propose amendments provided the amendment gets 2/3 of Congress to approve. At that point it has to be ratified by 2/3rds of the states.
IOW, the proposal is DOA and nothing more than political showboating.

[countryboy]

Yes, you can. Congress can propose amendments provided the amendment gets 2/3 of Congress to approve. At that point it has to be ratified by 2/3rds of the states.

It's not legislation, it's called a joint resolution. And as someone has already corrected me on, it requires 3/4 of the state legislatures to ratify.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution/article-v.html

[Peter1469]

That wasn’t directed at you, but I didn’t make that clear and that was my mistake. I apologize.

Both of those links confirm the bill is a constitutional amendment.

Thanks. I couldn't tell from the article that I linked to in the OP. The articles I later pulled up show that is what the bill is- a constitutional amendment.

[Tahuyaman]

Dems submit bill to end the electoral college (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/04/nolte-tyrannical-democrats-introduce-bill-to-kill-electoral-college/)

Someone should let them know that would take a Constitutional Amendment.
Also it would be a diaster. It could lead to an armed rebellion.



The country could not survive being governed by liberal metro elites.

[Green Arrow]

Also it would be a diaster. It could lead to an armed rebellion.



The country could not survive being governed by liberal metro elites.

You do realize that “liberal metro elites” would have the same voting power as everyone else, right? One person, one vote.

[Tahuyaman]

Lol, you cannot legislate amendments to the Constitution.In spite of some trying to split hairs, you are correct. Amending the constitution by design is a very arduous process. It's not just a simple manner of passing a law. Thats's why it doesn't happen very often.

[Tahuyaman]

You do realize that “liberal metro elites” would have the same voting power as everyone else, right? One person, one vote.


All a candidate would need to do is pander to three major metro areas dominated by liberal elites.



Maintaining the electoral college is essential to the survival of the nation.

[Captain Obvious]

Do you think if Rodham won with a non-majority vote these people would be drafting bills to get rid of the electoral college?

Nope, which makes situational hypocrisy.

[Tahuyaman]

If your aunt had testicles, she'd be your uncle.

[MisterVeritis]

If your aunt had testicles, she'd be your uncle.
I have been studying movement disorders for some time. Did you know Tourrette is considered to have the same neurological foundations as many of the movement disorders? It is characterized by vocal tics.

[gamewell45]

Dems submit bill to end the electoral college (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/01/04/nolte-tyrannical-democrats-introduce-bill-to-kill-electoral-college/)

Someone should let them know that would take a Constitutional Amendment.

I don't think its such a good idea even if they voted for a constitutional convention; you'd basically have a handful of states deciding every presidential election. The electoral college was put in place by our founding fathers for a good reason; that's because its a fair method of electing our presidents.

[Tahuyaman]

It's amusing when people tell us what others would do if what didn't happen actually happened.

[Tahuyaman]

I don't think its such a good idea even if they voted for a constitutional convention; you'd basically have a handful of states deciding every presidential election. The electoral college was put in place by our founding fathers for a good reason; that's because its a fair method of electing our presidents.

It would take a few major cities, let alone states. The electoral college serves an essential purpose.

[Captain Obvious]

It's amusing when people tell us what others would do if what didn't happen actually happened.

I know your last two silly little high school brat girl comments were directed at me.

Are you implying that had Rodham hypothetically won the presidency with Trump getting a majority vote this bill still would be put forth?

I can't wait for your reply...

[Tahuyaman]

I know your last two silly little high school brat girl comments were directed at me.

Are you implying that had Rodham hypothetically won the presidency with Trump getting a majority vote this bill still would be put forth?

I can't wait for your reply...

In spite of your juvelile initial comment I'll respond. The Republicans would not have responded by advocating the elimination of the electoral college.

[Captain Obvious]

In spite of your juvelile initial comment I'll respond. The Republicans would not have responded by advocating the elimination of the electoral college.


Do you think if Rodham won with a non-majority vote these people would be drafting bills to get rid of the electoral college?

Nope, which makes situational hypocrisy.
How did you manage to fuck this up and get that I was referring to Republicans?

Democrats brought this bill forward, that's who I was pretty clearly referring to.

Tighten up

[Tahuyaman]

OH well, so much for that.

[Green Arrow]

All a candidate would need to do is pander to three major metro areas dominated by liberal elites.

So, what you're saying is conservatism is a minority ideology that could never pass muster in a national vote?


Maintaining the electoral college is essential to the survival of the nation.

That's hyperbolic nonsense.

[Green Arrow]

In spite of some trying to split hairs, you are correct. Amending the constitution by design is a very arduous process. It's not just a simple manner of passing a law. Thats's why it doesn't happen very often.

LOL, nobody is splitting hairs. It's a constitutional amendment. Anyone who claims otherwise is wrong, period. The bill is a constitutional amendment.

[Tahuyaman]

LOL, nobody is splitting hairs. It's a constitutional amendment. Anyone who claims otherwise is wrong, period. The bill is a constitutional amendment.

Do you understand how the amendment process works?

[Tahuyaman]

That's hyperbolic nonsense.

How so?

[MisterVeritis]

So, what you're saying is conservatism is a minority ideology that could never pass muster in a national vote?
That's hyperbolic nonsense.
I cannot speak for others. People who live in cities have different interests than people who live elsewhere. People who live on the coasts have different interests than people who live inland. The electoral college process ensures that all national voices and interests must be heard and considered.

Without minority protections, we might as well disband the nation.

[MisterVeritis]

It would take a few major cities, let alone states. The electoral college serves an essential purpose.
One-half of the nation's population is found in just nine states.

[Green Arrow]

Do you understand how the amendment process works?

Yes, I do. I quoted it on a previous page. Is there a point to this or is it just more of your pointless meandering?

[Green Arrow]

How so?

The nation is not going to die forever and become a protectorate of Canada or Mexico if conservatives don't run everything. That's pure partisan hackery.

[Green Arrow]

...The electoral college process ensures that all national voices and interests must be heard and considered...

So does direct vote. Everyone's vote counts the same.

[Tahuyaman]

The nation is not going to die forever and become a protectorate of Canada or Mexico if conservatives don't run everything. That's pure partisan hackery.

Holy shit, there's a swerve of mamoth proportions. I guess in your mind only partisan hack believe that the electoral college is essential to our survival as a nation as we know it?

[MisterVeritis]

So does direct vote. Everyone's vote counts the same.
You failed to read or you failed to comprehend.

[Tahuyaman]

One-half of the nation's population is found in just nine states.

I don't know why anyone left or right would even entertain the idea of eliminating the electoral college.

[Green Arrow]

Holy shit, there's a swerve of mamoth proportions. I guess in your mind only partisan hack believe that the electoral college is essential to our survival as a nation as we know it?

No, but only partisan hacks believe the nation will not survive the opposition being in control.

[Green Arrow]

You failed to read or you failed to comprehend.

I both read and comprehended. I edited the post so you could see what I was responding to. You're welcome.

[Green Arrow]

I don't know why anyone left or right would even entertain the idea of eliminating the electoral college.

Because it's an antiquated concept that is no longer relevant in a modern context.

[Tahuyaman]

Because it's an antiquated concept that is no longer relevant in a modern context.


It is more relevant today than it was then. You have no issue with liberal metro elites dominating.


The elites have created enclaves of government dependence in these metro areas.

[MisterVeritis]

...The electoral college process ensures that all national voices and interests must be heard and considered...


I both read and comprehended. I edited the post so you could see what I was responding to. You're welcome.
You err. The problem is deeper than I imagined. You focus on the final step of the process and not the process itself.

Fortunately, it does not matter. The electoral college is here to stay.

[MisterVeritis]

Because it's an antiquated concept that is no longer relevant in a modern context.
Fortunately, your thoughts do not matter.

[Green Arrow]

It is more relevant today than it was then. You have no issue with liberal metro elites dominating.
It is not, that's completely wrong. And you're correct, I have no problem with the people determining what government they live under and who controls that government. If your ideology really needs to have the will of the people held back just to be enacted then it has no business being enacted.

[Green Arrow]

Fortunately, your thoughts do not matter.

We will see, in the end, whose position wins out.

[Green Arrow]

...The electoral college process ensures that all national voices and interests must be heard and considered...


You err. The problem is deeper than I imagined. You focus on the final step of the process and not the process itself.

Fortunately, it does not matter. The electoral college is here to stay.

For now.

[MisterVeritis]

We will see, in the end, whose position wins out.
We already have. The electoral college is in the body of the Constitution.

[Tahuyaman]

It is not, that's completely wrong. And you're correct, I have no problem with the people determining what government they live under and who controls that government. If your ideology really needs to have the will of the people held back just to be enacted then it has no business being enacted.
I'm very happy you aren't in charge of anything other than your own life.

[Green Arrow]

We already have. The electoral college is in the body of the Constitution.

Constitutions change. Laws change. Governments change. Time marches on.

[Green Arrow]

I'm very happy you aren't in charge of anything other than your own life.

I feel the same about you, so we're even.

[Tahuyaman]

I feel the same about you, so we're even.

you told me.

If I was in charge, government would play a much lesser role in everyone's life. I know, the thought of that is repulsive to you.

[MisterVeritis]

Constitutions change. Laws change. Governments change. Time marches on.
Which 38 states do you believe will agree to let nine states control the federal government?

[Green Arrow]

Which 38 states do you believe will agree to let nine states control the federal government?

States are lines on a map. People make decisions.

[Green Arrow]

you told me.

If I was in charge, government would play a much lesser role in everyone's life. I know, the thought of that is repulsive to you.

Not really, no.

[MisterVeritis]

States are lines on a map. People make decisions.
:-)

Uh-huh.

[Tahuyaman]

Not really, no.

Well, you always argue with those who advocate less government.

You appear to be the type who calls for less government in foreign relations, but expanded government on domestic / social issues.

[Green Arrow]

Well, you always argue with those who advocate less government.
Correct. At a considerably lesser rate I also argue with people who advocate more government. 2015 and 2016 were particularly brutal, almost none of the forum liberals liked me. JDubya and maineman in particular lost their shit on me a number of times.

You appear to be the type who calls for less government in foreign relations, but expanded government on domestic / social issues.

I think it's all relative, there are almost no areas on the social level that I advocate expanded government, that I know of. There are some areas on the domestic front where I see more expanded government as necessary and some areas that I think less is warranted. Overall though you're probably fair in that assessment.

[Tahuyaman]

Correct. At a considerably lesser rate I also argue with people who advocate more government. 2015 and 2016 were particularly brutal, almost none of the forum liberals liked me. JDubya and maineman in particular lost their $#@! on me a number of times.


I think it's all relative, there are almost no areas on the social level that I advocate expanded government, that I know of. There are some areas on the domestic front where I see more expanded government as necessary and some areas that I think less is warranted. Overall though you're probably fair in that assessment.
You are a big government left winger.

[Green Arrow]

You are a big government left winger.

I'm fine with you calling me whatever you like.

[Tahuyaman]

I'm fine with you calling me whatever you like.
I’m fine with keeping it honest and factual.

[Green Arrow]

I’m fine with keeping it honest and factual.

Cool.

So, electoral college?

[Peter1469]

I don't think its such a good idea even if they voted for a constitutional convention; you'd basically have a handful of states deciding every presidential election. The electoral college was put in place by our founding fathers for a good reason; that's because its a fair method of electing our presidents.
I agree.

Our Founders gave power to the federal government. Power to the states, and power to the people. Too many people today forget about the power of the states. Thanks to the 17th Amendment.

[Tahuyaman]

Cool.

So, electoral college?
It’s essential to maintain the nation as we know it.

[Green Arrow]

It’s essential to maintain the nation as we know it.

I disagree.

[Peter1469]

I disagree.
It absolutely is. If anything we should repeal the 17th Amendment.

[Tahuyaman]

I disagree.It’s ok for you to be wrong. That’s what America is all about.

[Captain Obvious]

It’s ok for you to be wrong. That’s what America is all about.
Being wrong?

Yeah, agree - a wall is a stupid idea.

But that's not America's choice, most people don't want a stupid wall so...

[Green Arrow]

It absolutely is. If anything we should repeal the 17th Amendment.

I think we need to do everything we can to give people more power and more say over their own government, rather than limiting it.

[Kalkin]

I think we need to do everything we can to give people more power and more say over their own government, rather than limiting it.
I think we need to do everything we can to give people more power and more say over their own lives, rather than empowering the government to micromanage them.

[The Xl]

Congress doesn't seem to understand that passing a bill doesn't supersede the constitution. You see it with gun control, you see it with the war powers act, you see it with this shit

[Abby08]

I don't know why anyone left or right would even entertain the idea of eliminating the electoral college.

Because, the left lost to Trump, so now, the electoral college is bad!

If Hillary had won, not a peep about it, would we be hearing.

And, everyone, left and right, knows that's true.

[Green Arrow]

Congress doesn't seem to understand that passing a bill doesn't supersede the constitution. You see it with gun control, you see it with the war powers act, you see it with this shit

No, but they do understand that they can introduce constitutional amendments, which is what this is.

[Tahuyaman]

Being wrong?

Yeah, agree - a wall is a stupid idea.

But that's not America's choice, most people don't want a stupid wall so... The subject is the electoral college.

[Peter1469]

I think we need to do everything we can to give people more power and more say over their own government, rather than limiting it.

Our Founders and I disagree. And I like their framework:

- give the federal government limited and enumerated powers
- allow for the direct election of Representatives from the states
- allow for the appointment of Senators from state legislators or by the governor (as the state decides)
- Elect a president based on a hybrid system that balances the interests of the people and the states.

Now off topic, but just as important:

- remember the limited and enumerated powers for the Federal government. Take those seriously. If you want the federal government's role expanded use one of the two processes in Art. V, U.S. Const.
- Actually take to heart the last two Amendments of the Bill of Rights. They should have been 1 and 2, instead of 9 and 10. Today it seems most people stop reading after the 5th Amendment, and skip to the 14th Amendment, and only recently discovered the 25th Amendment and gaze on it with obsessive interest.

Together this is the system that our Founders gave us. The 17th was a major blow to this system. It took much of the power of states and gave it to the people (and those who pull the strings behind the scenes). The legislature and judiciary largely ignores the 9th and 10th Amendments. Our system is out of whack- we need to re-balance it.

We should wake up and return to the framework the Founder's provided. Power shared between the federal government, the states, and the People.

[Common]

Hillary lost to Trump, democrats have allowed in and gave sanctuary to millions of illegals they hope to turn into staunch democrat voters and supporters. They believe and they are right that in the future they will have the most voters, so they want the electoral college gone so states Like California which is loaded with illegals will have more power.

If that happens we can just kiss the country goodbye, the original reason the electoral college was created applies more now than it ever did.

[stjames1_53]

Being wrong?

Yeah, agree - a wall is a stupid idea.

But that's not America's choice, most people don't want a stupid wall so...
..........of course you have more than a CNN poll to back up that statement? Most folks I know want a wall.............and like me, haven't been asked in any poll what we need/want for illegals crossing our borders.

[MMC]

Our Founders and I disagree. And I like their framework:

- give the federal government limited and enumerated powers
- allow for the direct election of Representatives from the states
- allow for the appointment of Senators from state legislators or by the governor (as the state decides)
- Elect a president based on a hybrid system that balances the interests of the people and the states.

Now off topic, but just as important:

- remember the limited and enumerated powers for the Federal government. Take those seriously. If you want the federal government's role expanded use one of the two processes in Art. V, U.S. Const.
- Actually take to heart the last two Amendments of the Bill of Rights. They should have been 1 and 2, instead of 9 and 10. Today it seems most people stop reading after the 5th Amendment, and skip to the 14th Amendment, and only recently discovered the 25th Amendment and gaze on it with obsessive interest.

Together this is the system that our Founders gave us. The 17th was a major blow to this system. It took much of the power of states and gave it to the people (and those who pull the strings behind the scenes). The legislature and judiciary largely ignores the 9th and 10th Amendments. Our system is out of whack- we need to re-balance it.

We should wake up and return to the framework the Founder's provided. Power shared between the federal government, the states, and the People.

Its called the Bill of Rights.....not the Bill of Needs.

[Green Arrow]

Hillary lost to Trump, democrats have allowed in and gave sanctuary to millions of illegals they hope to turn into staunch democrat voters and supporters. They believe and they are right that in the future they will have the most voters, so they want the electoral college gone so states Like California which is loaded with illegals will have more power.

If that happens we can just kiss the country goodbye, the original reason the electoral college was created applies more now than it ever did.

Right now, with the electoral college, California has 55 electoral votes to Wyoming’s 3. Without the electoral college, a person from California’s vote is counted the exact same way as a person from Wyoming’s vote.

What you are really arguing, whether you choose to admit it or not, is that your ideology is not popular and could never stand a vote by the people.

[Green Arrow]

Our Founders and I disagree. And I like their framework:

- give the federal government limited and enumerated powers
- allow for the direct election of Representatives from the states
- allow for the appointment of Senators from state legislators or by the governor (as the state decides)
- Elect a president based on a hybrid system that balances the interests of the people and the states.

Now off topic, but just as important:

- remember the limited and enumerated powers for the Federal government. Take those seriously. If you want the federal government's role expanded use one of the two processes in Art. V, U.S. Const.
- Actually take to heart the last two Amendments of the Bill of Rights. They should have been 1 and 2, instead of 9 and 10. Today it seems most people stop reading after the 5th Amendment, and skip to the 14th Amendment, and only recently discovered the 25th Amendment and gaze on it with obsessive interest.

Together this is the system that our Founders gave us. The 17th was a major blow to this system. It took much of the power of states and gave it to the people (and those who pull the strings behind the scenes). The legislature and judiciary largely ignores the 9th and 10th Amendments. Our system is out of whack- we need to re-balance it.

We should wake up and return to the framework the Founder's provided. Power shared between the federal government, the states, and the People.

The founders are dead. What they want is of no consequence. But even if we look at what they want, they said in the declaration of independence that the people had the right to determine their form of government, and alter or abolish it if it no longer represented their interests. Jefferson expressed a desire that we have a new constitution and government every 20 years. This rigid, zealous devotion to every thought and word they wrote does not pass the sniff test. They didn’t intend for us to keep everything as it was in 1789 for all eternity.

[Peter1469]

The founders are dead. What they want is of no consequence. But even if we look at what they want, they said in the declaration of independence that the people had the right to determine their form of government, and alter or abolish it if it no longer represented their interests. Jefferson expressed a desire that we have a new constitution and government every 20 years. This rigid, zealous devotion to every thought and word they wrote does not pass the sniff test. They didn’t intend for us to keep everything as it was in 1789 for all eternity.
The concepts for a successful union of states is very much alive.

The US is not a democracy and never was. It is a republic. Too many people want to strip states of their rightful authority.

Repealing the 17th Amendment will go a long way in saving the Republic.

[MisterVeritis]

I think we need to do everything we can to give people more power and more say over their own government, rather than limiting it.
That is precisely what the electoral college does. Now you understand. Good.

[MisterVeritis]

Right now, with the electoral college, California has 55 electoral votes to Wyoming’s 3. Without the electoral college, a person from California’s vote is counted the exact same way as a person from Wyoming’s vote.

What you are really arguing, whether you choose to admit it or not, is that your ideology is not popular and could never stand a vote by the people.
You err.

[Captdon]

Right now, with the electoral college, California has 55 electoral votes to Wyoming’s 3. Without the electoral college, a person from California’s vote is counted the exact same way as a person from Wyoming’s vote.

What you are really arguing, whether you choose to admit it or not, is that your ideology is not popular and could never stand a vote by the people.

We don't have a vote by the people.

[Captdon]

The founders are dead. What they want is of no consequence. But even if we look at what they want, they said in the declaration of independence that the people had the right to determine their form of government, and alter or abolish it if it no longer represented their interests. Jefferson expressed a desire that we have a new constitution and government every 20 years. This rigid, zealous devotion to every thought and word they wrote does not pass the sniff test. They didn’t intend for us to keep everything as it was in 1789 for all eternity.

They intended for us to amend when necessary.

[Green Arrow]

The concepts for a successful union of states is very much alive.

The US is not a democracy and never was. It is a republic. Too many people want to strip states of their rightful authority.

Repealing the 17th Amendment will go a long way in saving the Republic.
On what grounds do states need some level of representation that can’t be solved by having the people of those states choosing their representatives? What issues do the states have different from the people that run them?

[Green Arrow]

We don't have a vote by the people.

Correct. We should.

[Green Arrow]

That is precisely what the electoral college does. Now you understand. Good.

It does not.

[MisterVeritis]

The founders are dead. What they want is of no consequence. But even if we look at what they want, they said in the declaration of independence that the people had the right to determine their form of government, and alter or abolish it if it no longer represented their interests. Jefferson expressed a desire that we have a new constitution and government every 20 years. This rigid, zealous devotion to every thought and word they wrote does not pass the sniff test. They didn’t intend for us to keep everything as it was in 1789 for all eternity.
The Constitution offers two methods to amend the Constitution. You will find them in the Constitution's fifth article.

You may also foment a rebellion. If you are successful you may do as you please.

[MisterVeritis]

It does not.
Of course, it does.

[Green Arrow]

They intended for us to amend when necessary.

Jefferson wanted a whole new constitution every twenty years or so. Have we done that? Have we even amended it every twenty years?

[Green Arrow]

Of course, it does.

Clearly it does not when the candidate who wins the vote of the people does not win the election.

[MisterVeritis]

Jefferson wanted a whole new constitution every twenty years or so. Have we done that? Have we even amended it every twenty years?
You have three options. Choose one.

[Captdon]

Jefferson wanted a whole new constitution every twenty years or so. Have we done that? Have we even amended it every twenty years?

Jefferson wanted it? Who cares what he wanted. I care about what I want. You go do a vigil at Jefferson's grave and I'll live my own life.

[MisterVeritis]

Clearly it does not when the candidate who wins the vote of the people does not win the election.
We do not hold a popular vote for the Presidency. I thought a friend should tell you.

[Captdon]

Clearly it does not when the candidate who wins the vote of the people does not win the election.

The Constitution never meant the election to be a popularity contest. It was for the STATES to elect the President. The idea of a popular vote for President is not mentioned. Until 1824 there was no count of popular votes.

Amend the Constitution instead of complaining about it.

[Green Arrow]

Jefferson wanted it? Who cares what he wanted. I care about what I want. You go do a vigil at Jefferson's grave and I'll live my own life.

Jefferson was a founder and part author of the constitution. Man, you guys need to figure out if the founders matter or not, this is getting ridiculous.

[Green Arrow]

We do not hold a popular vote for the Presidency. I thought a friend should tell you.

I’m aware of that. That is the point. We don’t have a system where the people freely choose the government they live under and who controls it.

[Peter1469]

On what grounds do states need some level of representation that can’t be solved by having the people of those states choosing their representatives? What issues do the states have different from the people that run them?

My post at #98 describes it better.

[Green Arrow]

The Constitution never meant the election to be a popularity contest. It was for the STATES to elect the President. The idea of a popular vote for President is not mentioned. Until 1824 there was no count of popular votes.

Amend the Constitution instead of complaining about it.

No fucking duh it doesn’t have it. It should have it. THAT IS THE SYSTEM WE NEED TO HAVE INSTEAD OF WHAT WE HAVE. It is not this complicated.

[MisterVeritis]

I’m aware of that. That is the point. We don’t have a system where the people freely choose the government they live under and who controls it.
Actually, we do. But that is not what you want. You want people in the cities of nine states to select the President. It is not going to happen. But should it happen it will end the nation as a nation.

[Green Arrow]

My post at #98 describes it better.

It doesn’t really answer the question, though.

[Green Arrow]

Actually, we do. But that is not what you want. You want people in the cities of nine states to select the President. It is not going to happen. But should it happen it will end the nation as a nation.

They do that under the current system.

If the popular vote winner does not win the election, the people are being ignored. Simple as that.

[MisterVeritis]

They do that under the current system.

If the popular vote winner does not win the election, the people are being ignored. Simple as that.
There is no popular vote for the President. Nor should there ever be.

[Green Arrow]

There is no popular vote for the President. Nor should there ever be.

There is one, it just doesn’t mean anything because the result is ignored. We need to fix that.

[Peter1469]

It doesn’t really answer the question, though.
It explains how our founders believed power should be shared between the people, the states, and the federal government.

[Peter1469]

They do that under the current system.

If the popular vote winner does not win the election, the people are being ignored. Simple as that.

States are currently free to allocate their electors anyway they wish. A few states do use popular vote.

[Peter1469]

Congress can't pass a budget. They are not going to get close to a constitutional amendment.

[Green Arrow]

It explains how our founders believed power should be shared between the people, the states, and the federal government.

Right. What I’m trying to get at is why the states themselves need representation that can’t be acomplished by allowing the people to choose the representatives.

[Green Arrow]

Congress can't pass a budget. They are not going to get close to a constitutional amendment.

Correct. My money is on it dying in committee.

[Green Arrow]

States are currently free to allocate their electors anyway they wish. A few states do use popular vote.

I would be more willing to accept the EC if it was automatically done proportionally. Whatever percentage of the vote you get is what percentage of the electors you get. It would make third parties more relevant and force candidates to campaign in every state.

[The Xl]

No, but they do understand that they can introduce constitutional amendments, which is what this is.

Eh, I should have read the link. Would have been helpful if OP had that in the heading.

No matter, tbh I couldn't really give a shit whether or not we elect based on the electoral college or a popular vote. The same corrupt charlatans will wind up in charge in either case.

[The Xl]

The concepts for a successful union of states is very much alive.

The US is not a democracy and never was. It is a republic. Too many people want to strip states of their rightful authority.

Repealing the 17th Amendment will go a long way in saving the Republic.
It's already over. The state doesn't follow the constitution, civilians rights are neutered, and the country is completely controlled by corrupt bankers, politicians and their financiers, big businessmen, cops, lawyers and judges. Might as well put the nail in the coffin and end the charade once and for all.

[Peter1469]

Right. What I’m trying to get at is why the states themselves need representation that can’t be acomplished by allowing the people to choose the representatives.

That is cutting the states out of the process and makes the Senate almost redundant.

[Green Arrow]

That is cutting the states out of the process and makes the Senate almost redundant.

So why keep the state in the process? What interest does the state have that is different from its people?

[Peter1469]

So why keep the state in the process? What interest does the state have that is different from its people?

A state is a separate entity from its citizens. Just as citizens don't micromanage the federal government, they don't micromanage a state government.

The Senate was created to represent the states. The House the people. Once we enacted the 17th Amendment the purpose of the senate was over. It is just an elite House now.

[MisterVeritis]

There is no popular vote for the President. Nor should there ever be.

There is one, it just doesn’t mean anything because the result is ignored. We need to fix that.
You err. There is no popular vote for the President.

There are fifty plus contests, each of which chooses electors. The electors will vote for the President.

[Green Arrow]

There is no popular vote for the President. Nor should there ever be.

You err. There is no popular vote for the President.

There are fifty plus contests, each of which chooses electors. The electors will vote for the President.

Ah, so on your state’s ballots you check the boxes for specific electors and the presidential candidates aren’t on the ballot.

[stjames1_53]

Ah, so on your state’s ballots you check the boxes for specific electors and the presidential candidates aren’t on the ballot.

that may be the way LA does it, but the rest of the many states do it differently

[MisterVeritis]

Ah, so on your state’s ballots you check the boxes for specific electors and the presidential candidates aren’t on the ballot.
In my state, the name of the President and the elector's names are together.

[Green Arrow]

A state is a separate entity from its citizens. Just as citizens don't micromanage the federal government, they don't micromanage a state government.

The Senate was created to represent the states. The House the people. Once we enacted the 17th Amendment the purpose of the senate was over. It is just an elite House now.

I would be fine with abolishing the Senate and going for a unicameral legislature. If I’m not mistaken that was the New Jersey plan prior to the drafting of the constitution.

[Green Arrow]

In my state, the name of the President and the elector's names are together.

Which state?

[MisterVeritis]

Which state?
Alabama.

[Green Arrow]

that may be the way LA does it, but the rest of the many states do it differently

I don’t know how it is here yet, haven’t been here in a presidential year, but I recall in both California and Tennessee it was candidates listed.

[MisterVeritis]

I don’t know how it is here yet, haven’t been here in a presidential year, but I recall in both California and Tennessee it was candidates listed.
Back to...does it matter?

[Green Arrow]

Back to...does it matter?

Well, it did when I assumed everyone did it the same way. Now that I know they don’t, it doesn’t really matter.

[MisterVeritis]

Well, it did when I assumed everyone did it the same way. Now that I know they don’t, it doesn’t really matter.
Okay. Let's see how States do it in 2020.

[Tahuyaman]

I would be fine with abolishing the Senate and going for a unicameral legislature. If I’m not mistaken that was the New Jersey plan prior to the drafting of the constitution.
After reconsidering this issue, I believe that we should repeal the 17th amendment and return to having senator's appointed by the legislature of each state.

[MisterVeritis]

I would be fine with abolishing the Senate and going for a unicameral legislature. If I’m not mistaken that was the New Jersey plan prior to the drafting of the constitution.
Cool. The way to do this flows through the Fifth Article.

[Green Arrow]

Cool. The way to do this flows through the Fifth Article.

So you said, many times. I’m familiar with how the process works.

[Peter1469]

I would be fine with abolishing the Senate and going for a unicameral legislature. If I’m not mistaken that was the New Jersey plan prior to the drafting of the constitution.

I believe so. Some states are unicameral.

I would prefer the senate go back to the states.

[Green Arrow]

I believe so. Some states are unicameral.

I would prefer the senate go back to the states.

I think Nebraska is actually the only one.

I just don’t see the point in giving “states” representation. Representation for what?

[Peter1469]

I think Nebraska is actually the only one.

I just don’t see the point in giving “states” representation. Representation for what?
To represent the state's interests like citizen's interests are represented in the House.

[MisterVeritis]

I think Nebraska is actually the only one.

I just don’t see the point in giving “states” representation. Representation for what?
The States created the federal government to do a few things individual states cannot. The States must be represented as sovereign entities.

[Green Arrow]

To represent the state's interests like citizen's interests are represented in the House.
I get that, but what are those interests?

[Tahuyaman]

I get that, but what are those interests?
What we impress upon them as our interests. One interest is to minimize the federal government's involvement and encroachments into our daily life.

[Peter1469]

What we impress upon them as our interests. One interest is to minimize the federal government's involvement and encroachments into our daily life.

Right. The Constitutional framework is federalism. The Federal government has only the limited enumerated powers stated in the Constitution. Most power to regulate and spend tax dollars lies in Art. 1, sec. 8.

The States and the People have all remaining power.

The electoral college is a reflection of this framework. The people's vote is actually funneled through the state via the electors who are selected and whose vote is governed by state law. If we eliminate the EC we are further eroding the power of the states and the Constitutional framework. The 17th Amendment has already cracked that framework and should be repealed.