Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Are we close to a tipping point for a Constitutional Amendment to end the Electoral College?
#51
I guess my point about second guessing the Constitution was meant changing a Republic to a Democracy, as opposed to correcting things which were blatantly outmoded ideas contemporary to the time it was written.

The 12th Amendment was tweaking a couple of flaws in the Electoral College which is hardly the same thing as eliminating it.
Reply
#52
Ted King wrote:
Okay, I agree with that, but if there were no non-Constitutional way of changing the situation, you seem to think that it's not a big enough issue to bother going through the process of a Constitutional amendment. In that case, plug in our disagreement, rinse and repeat. Smile

You did not postulate a fictional, hypothetical universe when you posed the question. I thought we were talking about reality. :booty:

I don't think these questions can be evaluated outside of history or a rich context. It's an error to think they can be, because questions about right and wrong are ALWAYS contextual, in my opinion.
Reply
#53
rjmacs wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
Okay, I agree with that, but if there were no non-Constitutional way of changing the situation, you seem to think that it's not a big enough issue to bother going through the process of a Constitutional amendment. In that case, plug in our disagreement, rinse and repeat. Smile

You did not postulate a fictional, hypothetical universe when you posed the question. I thought we were talking about reality. :booty:
I'll admit that it didn't occur to me that a pivotal point of your claim hinged on there being a non-Constitutional way of addressing the problem. Next time you should tell me important stuff like that right away since I'm not sharp to see such things without them being pointed out to me. :nono:
Reply
#54
I don't agree at all with the point that a non-constitutional method of addressing a flaw in the constitution is better than amending the constitution. I think the reverse is true...if the constitution is flawed, the preferred way is to amend it, not subvert it through a pact between states and all of the cost and contortions associated with that.
Reply
#55
davester wrote:
I don't agree at all with the point that a non-constitutional method of addressing a flaw in the constitution is better than amending the constitution. I think the reverse is true...if the constitution is flawed, the preferred way is to amend it, not subvert it through a pact between states and all of the cost and contortions associated with that.

The "cost and contortions associated with" the non-constitutional methods are less than with a constitutional amendment. The National Popular Vote bill is easier, faster, simpler, and just as effective.
Reply
#56
Cannot the National Popular Vote approach, if not adopted by a super majority of states, lead to distortions in Electoral vote distribution? If this is adopted by many blue states but not by most red and swing states, what would those distortions look like?

It would make my head hurt to try and research past elections for comparison, so hopefully someone has already done that grunt stuff.

edit: to cross a t
Reply
#57
RgrF wrote:
Cannot the National Popular Vote approach, if not adopted by a super majority of states, lead to distortions in Electoral vote distribution? If this is adopted by many blue states but not by most red and swing states, what would those distortions look like?

It would make my head hurt to try and research past elections for comparison, so hopefully someone has already done that grunt stuff.

edit: to cross a t

Not in any way that would effect the outcome of an election. You should read up on the NPV approach. It doesn't go into 'effect' until the states that have passed it possess, collectively, enough electoral votes (270) to decide the winner. Once that happens, ALL of those states will commit ALL of their votes to the winner of the nationwide popular vote, therefore deciding the winner, regardless of how other states vote.

It could affect final totals of the electoral vote count, but the final ratio is immaterial.
Reply
#58
I wasn't aware of that provision, it makes more sense now. I'm aware California has passed it (I live there and as you know -- all politics are local). I just Googled and see they are about halfway toward the goal so its not likely to be a factor in the next election.

It's most certainly a better approach than a Constitutional amendment, a country that can't pass an ERA isn't likely to pass any other amendment.
Reply
#59
rjmacs wrote:

Was i ever defending the Electoral College? I'm not a fan of it - at all. I've just been arguing against amending the Constitution.

Earlier in this thread:

Ted King
Can anyone provide a good argument for retaining the Electoral College?


How about: it's worked for 235 years, and all in all, that's a pretty good record.

Sure looks like an argument for retaining the Electoral College in direct response to the question about providing a good argument for retaining it. When I said I thought you were kidding, you said you weren't. Then you switched to arguing that it wasn't worth trying to change it. Then you brought up that there is another way to do it without doing a Constitutional amendment, a method you argued - in the old thread you linked to - that won't ever happen. Perhaps all that had something to do with why I had a problem keeping track of what you were trying to do in this thread.
Reply
#60
Ted King wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]

Was i ever defending the Electoral College? I'm not a fan of it - at all. I've just been arguing against amending the Constitution.

Earlier in this thread:

Ted King
Can anyone provide a good argument for retaining the Electoral College?


How about: it's worked for 235 years, and all in all, that's a pretty good record.

Sure looks like an argument for retaining the Electoral College in direct response to the question about providing a good argument for retaining it. When I said I thought you were kidding, you said you weren't. Then you switched to arguing that it wasn't worth trying to change it. Then you brought up that there is another way to do it without doing a Constitutional amendment, a method you argued - in the old thread you linked to - that won't ever happen. Perhaps all that had something to do with why I had a problem keeping track of what you were trying to do in this thread.
Wow, it seems i really got under your skin!

You asked for an argument for retaining the Electoral College, and i suggested one. I don't think it's a particularly compelling argument, but you asked for an argument and i gave one. Sorry! Perhaps i should have disavowed the argument before i listed it. I didn't mean that this was my argument, just an argument.

What i was emphasizing was that it's enormously difficult to change the Constitution, by design. It takes a huge amount of political effort and capital to do it. Passing laws state-by-state is usually easier (the NPV route, in this case). You're right that i don't think that the NPV effort will succeed; i think the political establishment will resist this taking effect when it seems like it might actually happen. I could be wrong about this - it's my own personal assessment of the climate. But i suspect that the parties would greatly dislike the complications of having to run 50 state races and worry much more about third party candidates. That doesn't mean that i don't think NPV is a better approach than amending the Constitution.

Since you seem interested in my personal opinion/position, i think that we'd be better off with a popular vote rule for electing the president. However, I don't think the system we have is terribly broken, or contravenes the will of the people regularly. I know not everyone agrees with me - no need for a chorus of dissent. (I've been reading the thread. I know how people feel about this by now.) As it happens, the NPV bill has become law in my state, so there's that. I won't gripe if the National Popular Vote system comes into effect. But i'm skeptical. People keep harping on the "we're halfway there!" point, but getting a law passed in a handful of states isn't so hard. Getting 270 electoral votes will be a LOT tougher. I look forward to seeing it all unfold.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)