pudge's Journal: Electoral College Bypass

I wonder if the Democrats pushing this in California realize that if it changes the outcome of an election, it would -- in the forseeable future -- only hurt Democrats?

The plan is that the California electoral college votes would go to whichever candidate got the most "popular votes" nationwide. There's some obvious problems with this: some states may choose not to have a popular vote, and then what do you do? Also, small states would never agree to it, so you're giving up some of your power that others will retain. And so on.

But the funniest part is that if Kerry wound up with a hundred thousand or so more votes in Ohio last election, giving him the EC victory (even though Bush had more "popular votes"), California's EC votes would have switched from Kerry to Bush. So California's voters, who picked Kerry overwhelmingly, would have handed the victory to Bush.

And since California leans Democratic and will continue to do so for many years to come, this is not going to change any time soon: the voters will continue to pick the Democratic candidate for President, and yet risk giving all their EC votes to the Republican candidate, depending on what people in the other states do.

I gotta say, that's pretty stupid.

Does the bill have a trigger?

[sulli]

When I heard about this idea before, it included the provision that this rule would not take effect until 50% of electoral votes had been so pledged - in effect, maintaining the current system until enough states had agreed to scrap it. Does California NOT have this provision in the bill? If so, that's really dumb.

Re:Does the bill have a trigger?

[pudge]

When I heard about this idea before, it included the provision that this rule would not take effect until 50% of electoral votes had been so pledged - in effect, maintaining the current system until enough states had agreed to scrap it. Does California NOT have this provision in the bill? If so, that's really dumb.

I don't know. But it's still really dumb: California has a lot more to give up than most states, and literally could throw the election to a Republican. It won't help a Democrat. Larger Republi

Re:Does the bill have a trigger?

[pudge]

Also, I think that if someone has not read and understood Federalist 68, they have absolutely no reason to be talking about changing the electoral college, and certainly no worthwhile opinion about it.

I am not privy to the discussions about this bill, but if people say things like "we have an electoral college because the country was spread out," then they don't know what they are talking about, and should be ignored.

Also, I did look over the bill, and it does include the trigger. However, it does define "

Federalist 68

[sulli]

Here linked for reference [constitution.org]

I see your point that a rule based on nationwide popular vote would violate the principles established in this paper (which of course has o force of law, but is important from a historical standpoint) - but we already violate it every four years:

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all th

Re:Federalist 68

[pudge]

I see your point that a rule based on nationwide popular vote would violate the principles established in this paper (which of course has o force of law, but is important from a historical standpoint) - but we already violate it every four years:

Yes, and I've made this point before. But that is beside my point here. I am not saying a nationwide popular vote should abide by the principles set forth in Federalist 68, but that it should take the arguments contained therein into consideration: most of the arg

Re:Federalist 68

[jdavidb]

Which brings up another important question: when are you going to get back to publishing your summaries and commentaries on the Federalist papers? Clearly if you're discussing 68 you went further than your summaries would indicate. :)

My brother bought me the Federalist as a gift three or four years ago and I was shocked to find that it was hard for me to read ... I think my brain power has been decaying as I haven't made myself read many challenging things the last few years. I hope to get back to it so

Re:Federalist 68

[pudge]

Yeah, I've read through them all, but just never got around to continuning the process on Slashdot, due to ... life.

Maybe it would help if I didn't do sequential order, so I could post on one without waiting for its number to come up, if it is for one reason or another in my thoughts at the time.

Re:Federalist 68

[jdavidb]

Yeah, I've read through them all, but just never got around to continuning the process on Slashdot, due to ... life.

Yeah, I hate that. It's always getting in my way.

Re:Does the bill have a trigger?

[jdavidb]

I am not privy to the discussions about this bill, but if people say things like "we have an electoral college because the country was spread out," then they don't know what they are talking about, and should be ignored.

What, you mean like my high school?

Ugh...

Re:Does the bill have a trigger?

[jdavidb]

Just in case there was any confusion there, what I was saying is that my high school did not know what they were talking about and should be ignored. (Score another point for homeschooling, while we're at it.) After posting, I realized that could have been misread as saying, "pudge, you don't know anything, are you saying my high school was wrong?" which would be the exact opposite of my intent. (If there's ever any question about what I meant, I probably usually meant something that agreed with you.)

California's so far out there

[SiliconJesus]

I say we ceede California to become the first state of Meximerica. Let the liberal panty wastes live under spanglish rule. We'll just move the fence to the Nevada and Oregon state lines.