Reorganizing the electoral college

[Gitaroo Man]

There's going to be a Prop on the California ballot to porpotionalize the electoral votes instead of winner takes all this election

[Destructo6]

The reason for the Electoral College is that we are a republic, not a democracy. It's a buffer, just like Senators and Reps, between the whims of a fickle public and the best interests of the republic in which they live.

Looks like New Jersey is also looking into ending the "winner take all" tradition.

There's going to be a Prop on the California ballot to porpotionalize the electoral votes instead of winner takes all this election

I hadn't heard that. The only Propositions on the next vote that cover elections that I can tell are 60 and 62.

http://www.ss.ca.gov/elections/elections_j.htm

[cphilip]

Splitting electoral votes dilutes that states majority vote and completely makes the Electoral College unnessicary. You would then undo all the good that it does. And it was put in just for the purpose of NOT allowing popular vote to overwelm low population states....

And your totaly missrepresenting what Maine and Nebraska do. They DO USE POPULAR VOTE FOR WINNER TAKE ALL!!! They just devide up which popular votes they use! Totaly different than what you are trying to imply.


Whichever party slate wins the most popular votes in the State becomes that State's Electors-so that, in effect, whichever presidential ticket gets the most popular votes in a State wins all the Electors of that State. [The two exceptions to this are Maine and Nebraska where two Electors are chosen by statewide popular vote and the remainder by the popular vote within each Congressional district].

That is TOTALY different than what is being proposed. In this proposal they want to give some Electoral College votes to the Popular vote loser.

[spantol]

Splitting electoral votes dilutes that states majority vote and completely makes the Electoral College unnessicary. You would then undo all the good that it does. And it was put in just for the purpose of NOT allowing popular vote to overwelm low population states....

And if a state wants to do that, there's nothing the federal government can do to stop it, shy of amending the US Constitution. You seem to be arguing that there is some federal reason that Colorado can't split votes in the way that it has proposed, and this is simply untrue.

Now, there is one sticking point, in that Colorado wants the decision to be applied retroactively for this election. That may or may not be constitutional; I'm not familiar with Colorado's state constituion.

And your totaly missrepresenting what Maine and Nebraska do. They DO USE POPULAR VOTE FOR WINNER TAKE ALL!!! They just devide up which popular votes they use! Totaly different than what you are trying to imply.

I described the method they divide their votes in an earlier post. In these states, it is possible for the overall popular vote loser to win electoral votes, though more difficult than under Colorado's plan. It's a middle ground between what Colorado has proposed, and how the rest of the country does it. If you recall, I mentioned that this was quite a bit more sensible than Colorado's plan.

That is TOTALY different than what is being proposed. In this proposal they want to give some Electoral College votes to the Popular vote loser.

And if that's what the people of that state want to do, what of it? Yeah, it'd be a monumentally short-sighted decision, but it's certainly within their rights.

[ShooterJM]

There's actually a lawsuit pending because of the retroactive issue. The main argument is that a person can't have an informed vote if they don't know how the electoral vote will be split until after they vote on both. It should be shot down though. Even the head democrats are coming out against it.

[cphilip]

And if a state wants to do that, there's nothing the federal government can do to stop it, shy of amending the US Constitution. You seem to be arguing that there is some federal reason that Colorado can't split votes in the way that it has proposed, and this is simply untrue.

Now, there is one sticking point, in that Colorado wants the decision to be applied retroactively for this election. That may or may not be constitutional; I'm not familiar with Colorado's state constituion.



I described the method they divide their votes in an earlier post. In these states, it is possible for the overall popular vote loser to win electoral votes, though more difficult than under Colorado's plan. It's a middle ground between what Colorado has proposed, and how the rest of the country does it. If you recall, I mentioned that this was quite a bit more sensible than Colorado's plan.




And if that's what the people of that state want to do, what of it? Yeah, it'd be a monumentally short-sighted decision, but it's certainly within their rights.

No I do not agree at all that one state may affect the entire federation by going off into left field. And I do not think it is their right.... any more than it is anyones right to leave the Union itself. So no I don't agree with you at all. And I suspect constitutional law would not either. But.... however whatever we think matters not. What matters is how it all shakes out in the Federal Courts. I predict if they do this then they will find themselves in court. All other states have a stake in how they do this. It does not just affect that state alone.

[spantol]

If you don't agree that the individual states have a constitutionally protected right to choose how their electors are selected, I suggest you take an introductory civics class.

[spantol]

Incidentally, is this the paper you were citing? http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

If it is, have a look at the section titled "The Manner of Choosing Electors."

[cphilip]

If you don't agree that the individual states have a constitutionally protected right to choose how their electors are selected, I suggest you take an introductory civics class.

I suggest you do the same. Your interpreting. And so am I. But in the end the Interpretaion is not up to us. Its up to the Supreme Court. Maybe you should read the constitutional ammendments and be carefull to try and get the intent.... they have a right to meet and chose ONE person to send up to congress.... simple and in there. And the Federal Government reserves the right to amend all of this..

AMENDMENT XII

Passed by Congress December 9, 1803. Ratified June 15, 1804.


Note: A portion of Article II, section 1 of the Constitution was superseded by the 12th amendment.


The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. [And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. --]* The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.


*Superseded by section 3 of the 20th amendment. (the one seperating VP from this)

When its all said and done they vote amongst themselves in their state.... and record all those votes.... And (important) put forth ONE candidate (use to be a VP as well but later chaned in XX amendment I think). According to the constitution and its amendments each state is winner take all in a fashion.

[cphilip]

Incidentally, is this the paper you were citing? http://www.fec.gov/pdf/eleccoll.pdf

If it is, have a look at the section titled "The Manner of Choosing Electors."

No that wasn't it but that is an intersting paper. Reading it now... thanks..

[spantol]

There's not much interpretation to be done; it's completely clear-cut, spelled out in the Consitution, and axiomatic to our form of government.

I'm quite familiar with the 12th Amendment. You have mis-read it. The vote to which it refers is the vote of the electors.

[cphilip]

I think we are getting off the track here.... the debate here and the proposed Colorado amendment, appears to me to be about changing how thier Electoral College members will put up thier States Electoral votes for President in the final submission to the Federal Government.

Which I believe is NOT how the constitution and its amendments put forth they are supposed to do it. They are to put forth thier FINAL candidate (according to results of popular vote which elects them to do so) for the Winner only.

They propose now to split them up and send up several names. With varying tallies to each. And I do not see that as a states right. Its rights become Federal when it finaly submits it's votes. And clearly they intended that they vote and agree on one candidate for their state.

And making a State law that superseeds Federal Law is illegal.

Thats how I read it and interpret it. So I am arguing that it violates Federal law if they do that.

Chosiing how you select these Electoral College "electors" is not the issue. Allowing them to not do thier final tally and allowing them to not chose one person to vote for is the issue here. No ones ever tried to do that before and it is my opinion its vital to the Federation to maintain that rule.

[cphilip]

The vote to which it refers is the vote of the electors.

Exactly. And Colorado wants to change that in such a way that it is in direct conflict with that method.

[spantol]

I think we are getting off the track here.... the debate here and the proposed Colorado amendment, appears to me to be about changing how thier Electoral College members will put up thier States Electoral votes for President in the final submission to the Federal Government.

Here's the thing, though--it's not about changing how the Colorado's electors will vote, it's about which electors Colorado chooses to send. In the event of a 4/5 split decision, Colorado will send 4 electors that have pledged support to Candidate A, and 5 that have pledged support to Candidate B.

Which I believe is NOT how the constitution and its amendments put forth they are supposed to do it. They are to put forth thier FINAL candidate (according to results of popular vote which elects them to do so) for the Winner only.

Which federal law or Amendment mandates this, again?

They propose now to split them up and send up several names. With varying tallies to each. And I do not see that as a states right. Its rights become Federal when it finaly submits it's votes. And clearly they intended that they vote and agree on one candidate for their state.

Please provide some support for this assertion. The Amendment you cited mandates that each elector vote separately for a Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidate. There is no federal law that holds that state electors must vote as a block. The absence of a federal law makes this a matter for state legislatures.

And making a State law that superseeds Federal Law is illegal.

From the NARA US Electoral College FAQ:

There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States. Some States, however, require electors to cast their votes according to the popular vote. These pledges fall into two categories -- electors bound by State law and those bound by pledges to political parties.

Thats how I read it and interpret it. So I am arguing that it violates Federal law if they do that.

Can you cite the federal law this violates?

Chosiing how you select these Electoral College "electors" is not the issue. Allowing them to not do thier final tally and allowing them to not chose one person to vote for is the issue here. No ones ever tried to do that before and it is my opinion its vital to the Federation to maintain that rule.

Again, no federal or constitutional law mandates that electors must vote in a block, or even for the candidate they were selected to represent.

[spantol]

Exactly. And Colorado wants to change that in such a way that it is in direct conflict with that method.

How so? Under the proposal, the Colorado legislature will select nine electors from a larger pool of electors, each of which has pledged support to a party, based on proportional popular vote. These electors will then cast their votes in the manner described in the 12th Amendment.