Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
If Democrats are unhappy that their candidate lost the election despite having the majority of the popular vote in an electoral system in which only electoral college votes count, then perhaps they should campaign in future elections on a platform of reforming the electoral system? Obama had 8 years in office. Clinton had 8 years before him. Did either of them ever try to push electoral reform? Was it even a concern for Democrats before their candidate Hillary lost?
Complaining after the fact that your side got shafted by the system and that the vote is therefore invalid somehow just strikes me as...moving the goal posts.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If Democrats are unhappy that their candidate lost the election despite having the majority of the popular vote in an electoral system in which only electoral college votes count, then perhaps they should campaign in future elections on a platform of reforming the electoral system? Obama had 8 years in office. Clinton had 8 years before him. Did either of them ever try to push electoral reform? Was it even a concern for Democrats before their candidate Hillary lost?
Complaining after the fact that your side got shafted by the system and that the vote is therefore invalid somehow just strikes me as...moving the goal posts.
Replacing the Electoral College would require adding a constitutional amendment that would invalidate all of the sections of the constitution that establish the Electoral College and to also detail whatever new methodology would be used for presidential elections.
Although more states could quite easily start assigning their electors proportionally to the result of the popular vote in the state instead of 'winner takes it all'. If all states did that, it would almost (but not wholly) eliminate the risk of anyone wining the presidential election without having the most votes.
I do agree that anyone complaining about the electorate system only when it favors the opposition is barking up the wrong tree though.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/14 18:17:38
Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Shadow's point is that democrats are unhappy because this time it didn't work for them. The system is fine as long as they win. Both sides think this way of course. I'm not trying to be biased.
Prestor Jon wrote: When the final numbers are in our voter turnout is going to be around 56-58% of eligible voters. That is low for a presidential election here.
Based off a quick googling, it's not really all that low. Based on the wikipedia numbers...
2008 Obama managed to get a lot of people out to vote, he won by a large margin and also had high overall voter turnout. Other than 2008, it's been consistently below 60%, often dropping to the low 50's.
Clinton failed to get the Obama voters to come back out in force (and some of them may even have defected to team red or independents).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/14 18:22:58
yellowfever wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Shadow's point is that democrats are unhappy because this time it didn't work for them. The system is fine as long as they win. Both sides think this way of course. I'm not trying to be biased.
True I don't think we've ever seen wining candidates complain about the Electoral College. The point I was trying to make in my response to shadow was that replacing the Electoral College would require more than just a standard legislative effort to turn a bill into a law it would require a constitutional amendment, possibly more than one.
yellowfever wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Shadow's point is that democrats are unhappy because this time it didn't work for them. The system is fine as long as they win. Both sides think this way of course. I'm not trying to be biased.
True I don't think we've ever seen wining candidates complain about the Electoral College. The point I was trying to make in my response to shadow was that replacing the Electoral College would require more than just a standard legislative effort to turn a bill into a law it would require a constitutional amendment, possibly more than one.
Still, it'd be more productive to campaign for that constitutional reform instead of rioting, surely?
Are the protests and riots still ongoing or have they started to die down?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/14 18:30:02
Prestor Jon wrote: When the final numbers are in our voter turnout is going to be around 56-58% of eligible voters. That is low for a presidential election here.
Based off a quick googling, it's not really all that low. Based on the wikipedia numbers...
2008 Obama managed to get a lot of people out to vote, he won by a large margin and also had high overall voter turnout. Other than 2008, it's been consistently below 60%, often dropping to the low 50's.
Clinton failed to get the Obama voters to come back out in force (and some of them may even have defected to team red or independents).
True we've never had very high turnout but CNN is reporting 2016 looks to be the lowest turnout in 20 years.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/ Granted 20 years is only 5 presidential election cycles and it also encompasses the high turnout for Obama but it still shows us backsliding to lower numbers coming off of the last few cycles when turnout was on the high end of our historical spectrum. For whatever reason the voters that turned out for Obama didn't show up for Hillary when Obama's legacy, whatever that may be, was on the line.
Prestor Jon wrote: Federalism. Electoral College. Hillary beating Trump by 3 million votes in California accounts for the almost the entire popular vote margin of victory for Hillary and it didn't matter. Hillary won the 55 Electoral votes for California she gets no bonus points for margin of victory. Trump got viewer votes than Romney or McCain and when you look at the vote total for the other 49 states, aside from CA, it's a tie. If Hillary had been able to motivate supporters to go vote for her in the rest of the country outside of CA she would have won but she couldn't motivate supporters so she lost.
Yes she lost because of the electoral college. That doesn't mean her support was somehow low. SHE'S SECOND MOST VOTED CANDINATE IN USA HISTORY!
That's not low support by any stretch of imagination.
Nonsense. She had less votes than Obama. A lower voting percentage then any successful Democratic candidate in the last 100 years.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Prestor Jon wrote: When the final numbers are in our voter turnout is going to be around 56-58% of eligible voters. That is low for a presidential election here.
Based off a quick googling, it's not really all that low. Based on the wikipedia numbers...
2008 Obama managed to get a lot of people out to vote, he won by a large margin and also had high overall voter turnout. Other than 2008, it's been consistently below 60%, often dropping to the low 50's.
Clinton failed to get the Obama voters to come back out in force (and some of them may even have defected to team red or independents).
True we've never had very high turnout but CNN is reporting 2016 looks to be the lowest turnout in 20 years.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/ Granted 20 years is only 5 presidential election cycles and it also encompasses the high turnout for Obama but it still shows us backsliding to lower numbers coming off of the last few cycles when turnout was on the high end of our historical spectrum. For whatever reason the voters that turned out for Obama didn't show up for Hillary when Obama's legacy, whatever that may be, was on the line.
Curious. CNN reports much higher numbers for previous years than some other sources. I guess we'll just have to wait for the final estimates from consistent sources.
Some other sources put it lower than the Obama years but largely on par with historical figures...
yellowfever wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Shadow's point is that democrats are unhappy because this time it didn't work for them. The system is fine as long as they win. Both sides think this way of course. I'm not trying to be biased.
True I don't think we've ever seen wining candidates complain about the Electoral College. The point I was trying to make in my response to shadow was that replacing the Electoral College would require more than just a standard legislative effort to turn a bill into a law it would require a constitutional amendment, possibly more than one.
There's actually a fairly easy way to resolve the issue by making a law that Electoral College votes are to be split in proportion to the individual state's popular vote. So if a state with 10 electoral votes splits 57%, 41%, and 2%, it's electoral votes will be split 6/4, or if we wanted to reengineer the system to make third party's viable 6/3/1 (though that's arguably not going to work). Though even in those two proposed systems it's still technically possible to win the popular vote and lose the election (but far less likely).
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: If Democrats are unhappy that their candidate lost the election despite having the majority of the popular vote in an electoral system in which only electoral college votes count, then perhaps they should campaign in future elections on a platform of reforming the electoral system? Obama had 8 years in office. Clinton had 8 years before him. Did either of them ever try to push electoral reform? Was it even a concern for Democrats before their candidate Hillary lost?
Complaining after the fact that your side got shafted by the system and that the vote is therefore invalid somehow just strikes me as...moving the goal posts.
The trick of reforming the electoral college system is that it can only be amended by the people in power, and no leader in their right mind would dismantle the very system that granted them their power. So, it has not been, is not currently, and will likely continue to not be a priority for whatever president is in charge.
"Hope is the first step on the road to disappointment." Words to live by.
yellowfever wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Shadow's point is that democrats are unhappy because this time it didn't work for them. The system is fine as long as they win. Both sides think this way of course. I'm not trying to be biased.
True I don't think we've ever seen wining candidates complain about the Electoral College. The point I was trying to make in my response to shadow was that replacing the Electoral College would require more than just a standard legislative effort to turn a bill into a law it would require a constitutional amendment, possibly more than one.
There's actually a fairly easy way to resolve the issue by making a law that Electoral College votes are to be split in proportion to the individual state's popular vote. So if a state with 10 electoral votes splits 57%, 41%, and 2%, it's electoral votes will be split 6/4, or if we wanted to reengineer the system to make third party's viable 6/3/1 (though that's arguably not going to work). Though even in those two proposed systems it's still technically possible to win the popular vote and lose the election (but far less likely).
You would need an amendment to the constitution if you want a federal law governing how states choose electors.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
yellowfever wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Shadow's point is that democrats are unhappy because this time it didn't work for them. The system is fine as long as they win. Both sides think this way of course. I'm not trying to be biased.
True I don't think we've ever seen wining candidates complain about the Electoral College. The point I was trying to make in my response to shadow was that replacing the Electoral College would require more than just a standard legislative effort to turn a bill into a law it would require a constitutional amendment, possibly more than one.
There's actually a fairly easy way to resolve the issue by making a law that Electoral College votes are to be split in proportion to the individual state's popular vote. So if a state with 10 electoral votes splits 57%, 41%, and 2%, it's electoral votes will be split 6/4, or if we wanted to reengineer the system to make third party's viable 6/3/1 (though that's arguably not going to work). Though even in those two proposed systems it's still technically possible to win the popular vote and lose the election (but far less likely).
Except the constitution gives states the power to determine how they award their electoral votes, hence the way Maine and Nebraska apportion their electoral votes are unique. Before you could pass a federal law to dictate terms for electoral votes you'd have to amend the constitution to give the federal govt jurisdiction in the first place.
Prestor Jon wrote: I'll try this one more time, we had low voter turnout this year. When the final numbers are in our voter turnout is going to be around 56-58% of eligible voters. That is low for a presidential election here. Our population is growing and our number of eligible voters is growing so you can get "a lot" of votes while having a low percentage of voters cast ballots. Clinton's number of voters in the other 49 states aside from California underperformed Obama's numbers and more importantly Trump's. Trump got more votes than Hillary in a majority of states because Hillary had low turnout in a majority of states. You can willfully ignore the fact that low turnout cost Hillary the election but that doesn't change the fact that it happened.
I'll try this one more time though seems you aren't willing to face the simple facts that don't support your narrative:
Trump: 60,367,401
Cllinton: 61,035,460
Can you do simple substraction? Who got more votes?
If Clinton had low support then Trump had abysmal support.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/14 19:11:04
yellowfever wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Shadow's point is that democrats are unhappy because this time it didn't work for them. The system is fine as long as they win. Both sides think this way of course. I'm not trying to be biased.
True I don't think we've ever seen wining candidates complain about the Electoral College. The point I was trying to make in my response to shadow was that replacing the Electoral College would require more than just a standard legislative effort to turn a bill into a law it would require a constitutional amendment, possibly more than one.
There's actually a fairly easy way to resolve the issue by making a law that Electoral College votes are to be split in proportion to the individual state's popular vote. So if a state with 10 electoral votes splits 57%, 41%, and 2%, it's electoral votes will be split 6/4, or if we wanted to reengineer the system to make third party's viable 6/3/1 (though that's arguably not going to work). Though even in those two proposed systems it's still technically possible to win the popular vote and lose the election (but far less likely).
You would need an amendment to the constitution if you want a federal law governing how states choose electors.
Not if the states would simply agree that this would be best and pass legislation to that effect themselves, although I don't think that would be likely. We would probably see electoral votes allocated per district before that.
Prestor Jon wrote: I'll try this one more time, we had low voter turnout this year. When the final numbers are in our voter turnout is going to be around 56-58% of eligible voters. That is low for a presidential election here. Our population is growing and our number of eligible voters is growing so you can get "a lot" of votes while having a low percentage of voters cast ballots. Clinton's number of voters in the other 49 states aside from California underperformed Obama's numbers and more importantly Trump's. Trump got more votes than Hillary in a majority of states because Hillary had low turnout in a majority of states. You can willfully ignore the fact that low turnout cost Hillary the election but that doesn't change the fact that it happened.
I'll try this one more time though seems you aren't willing to face the simple facts that don't support your narrative:
Trump: 60,367,401
Cllinton: 61,035,460
Can you do simple substraction? Who got more votes?
If Clinton had low support then Trump had abysmal support.
In a Electoral College system... the national popular vote is meaningless.
yellowfever wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Shadow's point is that democrats are unhappy because this time it didn't work for them. The system is fine as long as they win. Both sides think this way of course. I'm not trying to be biased.
True I don't think we've ever seen wining candidates complain about the Electoral College. The point I was trying to make in my response to shadow was that replacing the Electoral College would require more than just a standard legislative effort to turn a bill into a law it would require a constitutional amendment, possibly more than one.
There's actually a fairly easy way to resolve the issue by making a law that Electoral College votes are to be split in proportion to the individual state's popular vote. So if a state with 10 electoral votes splits 57%, 41%, and 2%, it's electoral votes will be split 6/4, or if we wanted to reengineer the system to make third party's viable 6/3/1 (though that's arguably not going to work). Though even in those two proposed systems it's still technically possible to win the popular vote and lose the election (but far less likely).
You would need an amendment to the constitution if you want a federal law governing how states choose electors.
Not if the states would simply agree that this would be best and pass legislation to that effect themselves, although I don't think that would be likely. We would probably see electoral votes allocated per district before that.
I'm pretty sure there are some states out there... California included, that already passed legislation to award EV proportionally *if* the rest of the state follow suit.
yellowfever wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Shadow's point is that democrats are unhappy because this time it didn't work for them. The system is fine as long as they win. Both sides think this way of course. I'm not trying to be biased.
True I don't think we've ever seen wining candidates complain about the Electoral College. The point I was trying to make in my response to shadow was that replacing the Electoral College would require more than just a standard legislative effort to turn a bill into a law it would require a constitutional amendment, possibly more than one.
There's actually a fairly easy way to resolve the issue by making a law that Electoral College votes are to be split in proportion to the individual state's popular vote. So if a state with 10 electoral votes splits 57%, 41%, and 2%, it's electoral votes will be split 6/4, or if we wanted to reengineer the system to make third party's viable 6/3/1 (though that's arguably not going to work). Though even in those two proposed systems it's still technically possible to win the popular vote and lose the election (but far less likely).
You would need an amendment to the constitution if you want a federal law governing how states choose electors.
Not if the states would simply agree that this would be best and pass legislation to that effect themselves, although I don't think that would be likely. We would probably see electoral votes allocated per district before that.
It would Ben easier to get a majority of states to agree to a constitutional amendment than it would be to get all 50 states to agree to one set of laws. Also if you left the power at the state level then states could change their laws at any time to a different system.
yellowfever wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Shadow's point is that democrats are unhappy because this time it didn't work for them. The system is fine as long as they win. Both sides think this way of course. I'm not trying to be biased.
True I don't think we've ever seen wining candidates complain about the Electoral College. The point I was trying to make in my response to shadow was that replacing the Electoral College would require more than just a standard legislative effort to turn a bill into a law it would require a constitutional amendment, possibly more than one.
There's actually a fairly easy way to resolve the issue by making a law that Electoral College votes are to be split in proportion to the individual state's popular vote. So if a state with 10 electoral votes splits 57%, 41%, and 2%, it's electoral votes will be split 6/4, or if we wanted to reengineer the system to make third party's viable 6/3/1 (though that's arguably not going to work). Though even in those two proposed systems it's still technically possible to win the popular vote and lose the election (but far less likely).
Except the constitution gives states the power to determine how they award their electoral votes, hence the way Maine and Nebraska apportion their electoral votes are unique. Before you could pass a federal law to dictate terms for electoral votes you'd have to amend the constitution to give the federal govt jurisdiction in the first place.
But other states could start distributing their votes proportionally as well just like Maine and Nebraska couldn't they. There'd be no federal laws required, just changes on the state level?
So the far easiest way for anyone wanting to reform the electorate system to be less susceptible to having the winner of the popular vote lose the race for presidency (and helping third party's get some recognition in the bargain) would be to campaign for a change to proportional distribution in the state jurisdiction.
Prestor Jon wrote: I'll try this one more time, we had low voter turnout this year. When the final numbers are in our voter turnout is going to be around 56-58% of eligible voters. That is low for a presidential election here. Our population is growing and our number of eligible voters is growing so you can get "a lot" of votes while having a low percentage of voters cast ballots. Clinton's number of voters in the other 49 states aside from California underperformed Obama's numbers and more importantly Trump's. Trump got more votes than Hillary in a majority of states because Hillary had low turnout in a majority of states. You can willfully ignore the fact that low turnout cost Hillary the election but that doesn't change the fact that it happened.
I'll try this one more time though seems you aren't willing to face the simple facts that don't support your narrative:
Trump: 60,367,401
Cllinton: 61,035,460
Can you do simple substraction? Who got more votes?
If Clinton had low support then Trump had abysmal support.
In a Electoral College system... the national popular vote is meaningless.
Exactly, as your other post pointed out. If the 'game' was to win the popular vote the numbers would have looked a lot different and the campaigns would have been a lot different. tneva82's argument is pretty silly at this point because of that. Winning CA by over a million votes counts for the numbers he is using..
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
Prestor Jon wrote: I'll try this one more time, we had low voter turnout this year. When the final numbers are in our voter turnout is going to be around 56-58% of eligible voters. That is low for a presidential election here. Our population is growing and our number of eligible voters is growing so you can get "a lot" of votes while having a low percentage of voters cast ballots. Clinton's number of voters in the other 49 states aside from California underperformed Obama's numbers and more importantly Trump's. Trump got more votes than Hillary in a majority of states because Hillary had low turnout in a majority of states. You can willfully ignore the fact that low turnout cost Hillary the election but that doesn't change the fact that it happened.
I'll try this one more time though seems you aren't willing to face the simple facts that don't support your narrative:
Trump: 60,367,401
Cllinton: 61,035,460
Can you do simple substraction? Who got more votes?
If Clinton had low support then Trump had abysmal support.
Abysmal support? Its a 0.5% difference. One million means little when we're talking hundreds of millions.
What I have
~4100
~1660
Westwood lives in death!
Peace through power!
A longbeard when it comes to Necrons and WHFB. Grumble Grumble
If you turn the contest into one for popular vote, why the feth would any candidate go anywhere but CA and NY, and specifically the cities in them? You may hit a few other major cities, but most states would be a waste of effort for the campaigns to go to. The Electoral system is the way it is for some damned good reasons.
Every time a terrorist dies a Paratrooper gets his wings.
yellowfever wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Shadow's point is that democrats are unhappy because this time it didn't work for them. The system is fine as long as they win. Both sides think this way of course. I'm not trying to be biased.
True I don't think we've ever seen wining candidates complain about the Electoral College. The point I was trying to make in my response to shadow was that replacing the Electoral College would require more than just a standard legislative effort to turn a bill into a law it would require a constitutional amendment, possibly more than one.
There's actually a fairly easy way to resolve the issue by making a law that Electoral College votes are to be split in proportion to the individual state's popular vote. So if a state with 10 electoral votes splits 57%, 41%, and 2%, it's electoral votes will be split 6/4, or if we wanted to reengineer the system to make third party's viable 6/3/1 (though that's arguably not going to work). Though even in those two proposed systems it's still technically possible to win the popular vote and lose the election (but far less likely).
You would need an amendment to the constitution if you want a federal law governing how states choose electors.
Not if the states would simply agree that this would be best and pass legislation to that effect themselves, although I don't think that would be likely. We would probably see electoral votes allocated per district before that.
It would Ben easier to get a majority of states to agree to a constitutional amendment than it would be to get all 50 states to agree to one set of laws. Also if you left the power at the state level then states could change their laws at any time to a different system.
A constitutional amendment would permanently give away the power to choose electors, by passing matching laws they would retain that power.
Zywus wrote: Although more states could quite easily start assigning their electors proportionally to the result of the popular vote in the state instead of 'winner takes it all'. If all states did that, it would almost (but not wholly) eliminate the risk of anyone wining the presidential election without having the most votes.
I do agree that anyone complaining about the electorate system only when it favors the opposition is barking up the wrong tree though.
.
Things started going to in the 1880s when the idea of the "general ticket" in the Electoral system came about. When that happened in a handful of States, all States felt compelled to do the same to insure that their citizens' favored candidate still had a shot. After that, Electors went from "free agents, independent thinkers, or deliberative representatives" to "voluntary party lackeys and intellectual non-entities."
In the Federalist Papers #68, Hamilton outlined what the Founding Fathers had in mind for the Electoral College and Electoral System:
"A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated [tasks]."
They assumed that it would happen district by district (whether by State elections for Electors, or appointment by the district's representatives acting on their behalf in the State legislatures). And that was how the game was played until the 1880's. When the method of State legislatures electing Electors started to be slowly abandoned, and the system of State popular elections of Electors by district, was gradually replaced by the State-wide general elections for Electors ("Winner Take All"), the Electoral College lost it's bite and intended purpose. It's just a round-about way of electing the President by popular vote State by State, with the one getting the most States where they had the most popular votes. Because the Electors, whether by State law or feeling the obligation to their supporters, will usually vote along the lines of the popular vote in a given State.
We don't need a Constitutional Amendment to reform the Electoral College. What we need is to re-establish the system as it stood after the ratification of the 12th Amendment, when the President and Vice President required separate votes by Electors. And that can be done by State legislatures changing the way Electors are chosen back to the original method (by district). We need to get rid of the "Winner Take All" system. But at the same time, the President should not be chosen by popular vote directly.
CptJake wrote: If you turn the contest into one for popular vote, why the feth would any candidate go anywhere but CA and NY, and specifically the cities in them? You may hit a few other major cities, but most states would be a waste of effort for the campaigns to go to. The Electoral system is the way it is for some damned good reasons.
Because the majority of voters still live in other places than CA and NY. In fact, there live voters all over the country.
Do you think presidential candidates in France just campaign in Paris and the big cities?
This hasn't been posted here yet, but I think it has some real merit [/snark]
Just gotta ditch baseball for hockey (no brainer, really) and understand fries ain't gak without cheese curds and gravy.
Oh, and it's a toque, not beanie, and put the "u" back into colour and armour and honour. It looks better.
Welcome to the family!
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Zywus wrote: Although more states could quite easily start assigning their electors proportionally to the result of the popular vote in the state instead of 'winner takes it all'. If all states did that, it would almost (but not wholly) eliminate the risk of anyone wining the presidential election without having the most votes.
Actually, it wouldn't. The disparity comes from States like New York and California having very large populations who vote significantly for one party. Even with proportional Electors, you'll still have a situation where all the surplus votes in California and New York propel Hillary atop the nationwide popular vote total simply because there are so many people in those States who voted for her.
yellowfever wrote: Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe Shadow's point is that democrats are unhappy because this time it didn't work for them. The system is fine as long as they win. Both sides think this way of course. I'm not trying to be biased.
True I don't think we've ever seen wining candidates complain about the Electoral College. The point I was trying to make in my response to shadow was that replacing the Electoral College would require more than just a standard legislative effort to turn a bill into a law it would require a constitutional amendment, possibly more than one.
There's actually a fairly easy way to resolve the issue by making a law that Electoral College votes are to be split in proportion to the individual state's popular vote. So if a state with 10 electoral votes splits 57%, 41%, and 2%, it's electoral votes will be split 6/4, or if we wanted to reengineer the system to make third party's viable 6/3/1 (though that's arguably not going to work). Though even in those two proposed systems it's still technically possible to win the popular vote and lose the election (but far less likely).
Except the constitution gives states the power to determine how they award their electoral votes, hence the way Maine and Nebraska apportion their electoral votes are unique. Before you could pass a federal law to dictate terms for electoral votes you'd have to amend the constitution to give the federal govt jurisdiction in the first place.
You wouldn't need an Amendment.
The Constitution only provides for how many Electors a state has, and how they are chosen. How they vote, or how their votes are counted, is not a product of Constitutional law.
In fact, when states began switching to a general ticket, both James Madison and Alexander Hamilton declared it a violation of the Constitution (no court case ever happened). They envisioned the College functioning as citizens electing their electors, and then the electors being the only ones to elect the President/Vice President (i.e. the Constitution was written with the assumption that the electors would not be winner take all based on a popular vote but as the electors being free to make their own judgement). The only thing the Federal Government can't legally do is dictate how electors are chosen. Technically there is no legal basis on which to deny the Federal Government from defining how the electors vote (they just haven't traditionally done so).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/14 19:28:10
~4100
~1660
in the 1880s when the idea of the "general ticket" in the Electoral system came about. When that happened in a handful of States, all States felt compelled to do the same to insure that their citizens' favored candidate still had a shot. After that, Electors went from "free agents, independent thinkers, or deliberative representatives" to "voluntary party lackeys and intellectual non-entities."
