Are we close to a tipping point for a Constitutional Amendment to end the Electoral College?

[rjmacs]

davester wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
Okay. As i stated above, i don't consider the 2000 election alone to be sufficient grounds for amending the Constitution, but it's okay if we disagree about that.

This makes me wonder what state you live in. I live in California, so my vote is not worth much, which is why the candidates don't bother to campaign very hard here. Heck, they have to spend four times as much per vote here than they do in some other states.
I don't think that has anything to do with how much candidates spend in California, but with how California apportions its electoral votes (see below).

Ted King wrote:
I totally agree but would say it more flawed than that even. Under the current system, look at how much sway voters like Cuban Americans in Florida have. In the Gore election all it took was a very small event like the Elián González affair to make the vote close enough to flip Florida's Electoral votes to Bush. Because of the Electoral College and Florida being a close swing state, the relatively small number of Cuban Americans in Florida have a way, way more disproportionate say in who becomes president than someone living in California. That is a significant problem.

The reason for this disproportionality has nothing to do with the Electoral College, per se, but with how Florida and other large states apportion the votes of their Electors. It's the 'winner-takes-all' model that produces this problem.

As noted above, passage of the National Popular Vote bill in a sufficient number of states would fix this problem.

[Ted King]

rjmacs wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
The Electoral College has already been changed by amendment - the 12th Amendment. That happened in 1804. Was the "flaw" they fixed more serious than electing a person president who didn't get the most votes? If so, why do you think so?

I'm not interested in 'comparing the merits' of constitutional amendments, Ted. I understand what you are asking, but i don't think going at it from this angle moves the argument forward. It's an argumentative parry to get me to defend or condemn the 12th Amendment, which is wholly off point.

The present question is: does the imperfection of the Electoral College process merit amending the Constitution. Nobody here is arguing that the process is perfect or optimized as it is. I have argued that it does not rise to the level of constitutional amendment, and you have argued otherwise. I think it's fine if we disagree on that point.
That is the question I was pursuing. You say that the Electoral College process isn't flawed enough to merit amendment to the Constitution and I was providing you with an example of when the Electoral College has already been deemed as flawed enough to merit an amendment as a way to illustrate that your claim is questionable.

You said, "We don't change the Constitution simply because we've figured out a better way to do things. We change the Constitution to remedy serious flaws, to guarantee specific rights, occasionally to change the powers of government." So either what happened with the 12th Amendment was serious enough to warrant a change or your claim isn't true. If it was serious enough, then why aren't the issues I'm bringing up serious enough?

[Ted King]

rjmacs wrote:

As noted above, passage of the National Popular Vote bill in a sufficient number of states would fix this problem.

Well, as long as the Electoral College is made irrelevant then I don't care about whether there is a Constitutional Amendment or not. But the problem certainly is significant enough that the Electoral College does need to be made irrelevant by some means.

[Ted King]

Bill in NC wrote:
Eliminate the Electoral College and every presidential election will be determined by the courts.

Our voting system will never be accurate enough to ensure every single vote gets counted correctly - there would always be enough statistical error for the losing candidate to sue.

Your evidence for this is...?

[swampy]

Ted King wrote:


Obama may try to change that by Executive Order like he's changing so many things with the swipe of his pen. /sarc

Under the National Popular vote system, it would still be the Electoral College that decides who becomes president - it's just that enough states would agree to cast their votes in the Electoral College in a manner to assure that the person with the plurality of votes nationwide gets enough Electoral College votes to become president.

I have no idea what you are referring to in relation to the Electoral College with your comment about Obama and an executive order.
You don't see the /sarcasm notice?

But to your argument. In other words, the people in Florida vote for XXX, but because candidate YYY won the popular vote nationally, Florida's Electoral votes would have to go to YYY? Are you saying that our 29 electoral votes (which may decide the presidency) cannot be cast for XXX because YYY won a popular vote?

Ain't gonna happen.

[rjmacs]

Ted King wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]
I'm not interested in 'comparing the merits' of constitutional amendments, Ted. I understand what you are asking, but i don't think going at it from this angle moves the argument forward. It's an argumentative parry to get me to defend or condemn the 12th Amendment, which is wholly off point.

The present question is: does the imperfection of the Electoral College process merit amending the Constitution. Nobody here is arguing that the process is perfect or optimized as it is. I have argued that it does not rise to the level of constitutional amendment, and you have argued otherwise. I think it's fine if we disagree on that point.

That is the question I was pursuing. You say that the Electoral College process isn't flawed enough to merit amendment to the Constitution and I was providing you with an example of when the Electoral College has already been deemed as flawed enough to merit an amendment as a way to illustrate that your claim is questionable.
Whether a constitutional amendment is merited is not simply a question of the flaw, but of the proper use of political resources in the time the flaw is being addressed. Perhaps in 1804 it was an appropriate time to spend the time and resources on changing the Constitution. I don't thing that in 2011, the cost-benefit argument favors an amendment. We have more pressing issues to address.

Ted King wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]

As noted above, passage of the National Popular Vote bill in a sufficient number of states would fix this problem.

Well, as long as the Electoral College is made irrelevant then I don't care about whether there is a Constitutional Amendment or not. But the problem certainly is significant enough that the Electoral College does need to be made irrelevant by some means.
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.

[Ted King]

rjmacs wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
[quote=rjmacs]
I'm not interested in 'comparing the merits' of constitutional amendments, Ted. I understand what you are asking, but i don't think going at it from this angle moves the argument forward. It's an argumentative parry to get me to defend or condemn the 12th Amendment, which is wholly off point.

The present question is: does the imperfection of the Electoral College process merit amending the Constitution. Nobody here is arguing that the process is perfect or optimized as it is. I have argued that it does not rise to the level of constitutional amendment, and you have argued otherwise. I think it's fine if we disagree on that point.

That is the question I was pursuing. You say that the Electoral College process isn't flawed enough to merit amendment to the Constitution and I was providing you with an example of when the Electoral College has already been deemed as flawed enough to merit an amendment as a way to illustrate that your claim is questionable.
Whether a constitutional amendment is merited is not simply a question of the flaw, but of the proper use of political resources in the time the flaw is being addressed. Perhaps in 1804 it was an appropriate time to spend the time and resources on changing the Constitution. I don't thing that in 2011, the cost-benefit argument favors an amendment. We have more pressing issues to address.

Ted King wrote:
[quote=rjmacs]

As noted above, passage of the National Popular Vote bill in a sufficient number of states would fix this problem.

Well, as long as the Electoral College is made irrelevant then I don't care about whether there is a Constitutional Amendment or not. But the problem certainly is significant enough that the Electoral College does need to be made irrelevant by some means.
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.
I guess I wasn't quick enough to make this edit to my post above, "You said, "We don't change the Constitution simply because we've figured out a better way to do things. We change the Constitution to remedy serious flaws, to guarantee specific rights, occasionally to change the powers of government." So either what happened with the 12th Amendment was serious enough to warrant a change or your claim isn't true. If it was serious enough, then why aren't the issues I'm bringing up serious enough?"

[rjmacs]

Ted King wrote:
I guess I wasn't quick enough to make this edit to my post above, "You said, "We don't change the Constitution simply because we've figured out a better way to do things. We change the Constitution to remedy serious flaws, to guarantee specific rights, occasionally to change the powers of government." So either what happened with the 12th Amendment was serious enough to warrant a change or your claim isn't true. If it was serious enough, then why aren't the issues I'm bringing up serious enough?"

Because they can be fixed with plain old non-Constitution-amending laws. Which is easier, faster, simpler, and just as effective.

[Ted King]

swampy wrote:

You don't see the /sarcasm notice?

Even sarcastic comments normally have some relevance to the issue at hand.

[Ted King]

rjmacs wrote:
[quote=Ted King]
I guess I wasn't quick enough to make this edit to my post above, "You said, "We don't change the Constitution simply because we've figured out a better way to do things. We change the Constitution to remedy serious flaws, to guarantee specific rights, occasionally to change the powers of government." So either what happened with the 12th Amendment was serious enough to warrant a change or your claim isn't true. If it was serious enough, then why aren't the issues I'm bringing up serious enough?"

Because they can be fixed with plain old non-Constitution-amending laws. Which is easier, faster, simpler, and just as effective.
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.