Top Democrat Wrongly Asserts Electoral College Isn’t in Constitution

GURPS

INGSOC
PREMO Member
“There’s a national popular vote compact,” he added, “in which a number of states have passed a bill that says we will allocate our vote, our electoral votes, to the person who wins the national popular vote once other states totaling 270 electoral votes do the same.”

Article II of the Constitution, however, clearly outlines the electoral process, dictating that states must appoint electors who meet and vote for the president:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

Perez previously has said Republican nominee Donald Trump “didn’t win” the 2016 presidential election because Democrat Hillary Clinton won the popular vote.


Top Democrat Wrongly Asserts Electoral College Isn’t in Constitution
 

SamSpade

Well-Known Member
The ONE part that I think he is alluding to is that the Constitution does not explicitly lay out - and therefore - forbid - the kind of legislation he's suggesting.
That a state's slate of electors only vote for the national winner of the popular vote. I don't know anywhere it indicated that can't be done.

However, it does do at least two things - one is, it makes the Electoral College completely irrelevant, because if every state did that, every Presidential election would have the winner always win all the Electoral votes. It means instead of campaigning in swing or near swing states, presidential candidates could just focus on the population centers and embrace issues only of importance to urban dwellers.

Secondly - it essentially disenfranchises the state as a voting entity. Say, a conservative state like Utah votes 80% for the conservative candidate - but all of the EC votes go to the other candidate. You haven't just wiped out the Electoral College - you've made the overvotes in California and New York totally erase the votes in Utah. They may as well not go at all.

Of course, people ONLY want the Electoral College gone when it gores THEIR candidate - not if by chance they should WIN with it.

BTW - what do they think should be done if NO ONE gets the "popular vote"? As in, no candidate actually gets more than half? Should the entire nation be regarded as having voted for someone who simply got the MOST votes, even if it was less than say, 40%? HILLARY also did not get the majority of votes, What should be done, then?
 

Hijinx

Well-Known Member
The ONE part that I think he is alluding to is that the Constitution does not explicitly lay out - and therefore - forbid - the kind of legislation he's suggesting.
That a state's slate of electors only vote for the national winner of the popular vote. I don't know anywhere it indicated that can't be done.

However, it does do at least two things - one is, it makes the Electoral College completely irrelevant, because if every state did that, every Presidential election would have the winner always win all the Electoral votes. It means instead of campaigning in swing or near swing states, presidential candidates could just focus on the population centers and embrace issues only of importance to urban dwellers.

Secondly - it essentially disenfranchises the state as a voting entity. Say, a conservative state like Utah votes 80% for the conservative candidate - but all of the EC votes go to the other candidate. You haven't just wiped out the Electoral College - you've made the overvotes in California and New York totally erase the votes in Utah. They may as well not go at all.

Of course, people ONLY want the Electoral College gone when it gores THEIR candidate - not if by chance they should WIN with it.

BTW - what do they think should be done if NO ONE gets the "popular vote"? As in, no candidate actually gets more than half? Should the entire nation be regarded as having voted for someone who simply got the MOST votes, even if it was less than say, 40%? HILLARY also did not get the majority of votes, What should be done, then?

I like to keep things simple.
The simple explanation is that Democrats lost and they are trying to figure out a way in which they can always win.
 

Kyle

ULTRA-F###ING-MAGA!
PREMO Member
I like to keep things simple.
The simple explanation is that Democrats lost and they are trying to figure out a way in which they can always win.


They aren't even competent when they cheat.
 
Top