Don't make broad statements with no backing, when Bush jr. was elected 'the majority' of people wanted the electoral college removed, didn't happen, why? Not enough support.
This is the most technically accurate but profoundly misleading statement in this entire discussion, so I wish to - briefly - explain why in order that an important point is made.
The issue at hand is simply that they public is, and has always been, completely and utterly
irrelevant when the electoral college is being discussed. Does anyone know, on hand, how easy it is to create an amendment to the constitution? The answer, if you are unclear on the procedure, requires a super-majority of Congress, and three-fourths of the states, with a seven-year deadline. The process is so ungodly difficult that as of today only 27 have every been passed; given that the first 10 were done all at once, that means the process only occurred 18 times in our nation's history. Subtract the three Civil-War amendments, and you have only 15. The last fifty years (which is 1/4 of our nation's history) accounts for only three of these amendments. Within one year, it will be down to two. Unanimous opinion is needed.
But let's say we pick something easier than that. The
National Popular Vote Compact would mean that, if states comprising 50% of the electoral college passed this law, the winner of the Popular vote would *always* win the electoral college anyway. So what's that? Easy enough right? Absolutely fucking not, for two important reasons: One; Republican States have shown zero interest in the compact, and the result of this election is unlikely to increase their enthusiasm for the idea. Two: Purple states have also shown zero interest in it, because it inherently deprives them of power and influence. This compact is, quite literally, not in the interest of Ohio or Florida. Thus, logically, the pact cannot possibly succeed. Regardless of whether Floridians really wanted it, their state would
never agree to it willingly. So unless Dark Red Republican states agree to it, it will never happen, and since A) They are skeptical of reform in general, and B) They have just been shown quite clearly to stand to lose under this arrangement, they will not agree to it. If Trump had won the popular vote and lost the electoral college, things would have, perhaps, been different.
Personally, I'm most in favor of electorial votes assigned based on how the proportion of the population within voted, like how Maine does it. Makes states not be completely sidelined while lining up closer to the popular.
Sure, but here's the problem: How many electoral votes does Maine have? Four. Very little on the line if you split Maine.
Imagine instead that California had this system. It has 55 electoral votes, and Trump won 33% of the vote. That's a conservative estimate of 18 electoral votes gone. Coincidentally, 18 electoral votes is also the entire vote total of Ohio. Absolutely enough to swing an election. Unlike the National Popular Vote Compact, it has a much more difficult deal: if a small state does it unilaterally, it's irrelevant. If a big state does it unilaterally, it literally swings the entire election. Sure if California AND Texas do it, it's fine, but as long as there are holdouts, the consequences are dramatic, and no single-party big state will ever agree to it.
That's why the electoral college is the way it is. Not insufficiently popular, but the fact that it is A) Completely isolated from popular opinion, and B) Supported by a very stable core bloc large enough to permenently filibuster efforts to repeal.
Author
Topic: Should California become its own nation? (Read 14459 times)