Here's a group hoping to challenge "winner take all" EC votes

[End Of The Road]

If they can crowdfund $250,000 in 30 days, they will challenge the "winner take all" rule in court. If they fall short of the goal, all donors get their contribution back. Here's our chance to try to make sure what happened to Hillary doesn't happen again.

Not a scam. This effort is by a new non-profit, non-partisan organization called Equal Citizens.

Take a look and spread the word.


https://equalvotes.us

[PoliticAverse]

1. Based on that argument, if I don't vote for the Congressperson that wins the district I'm in...

or the Senate candidate that wins in my state my "vote counts for nothing" too.

[End Of The Road]

2. You don't believe the states' winner take all rule is unconstitutional?

I do. And we've got to start someplace to get our democracy back. This is a good opportunity.

[MichMary]

3. I don't know how it could be unconstitutional,

when it's actually _in_ the Constitution.

Changing it would take a constitutional amendment, and that ain't gonna happen. Just sayin'.

[saidsimplesimon]

4. Hello MichMary

"We the people" can make anything happen, if we have the will and the resources. It requires long term work without immediate gratification.

[MichMary]

8. Hello

A Constitutional amendment needs to be passed by a 2/3 majority in the House AND Senate, and then ratified by 3/4 of the states.

Have you looked at the makeup of the House, Senate, and state governments?? Do you think that the smaller, conservative states are going to willingly give up that power?

This will NOT happen, not for a long time, if ever.

[End Of The Road]

5. The Constitution does not mandate "winner take all"

It's up to individual states to determine how to apportion their electoral votes. Nebraska and Maine use a proportional system, e.g., if the presidential popular vote is split 60/40, then the electors for that state are split 60/40. If all states did this, all citizens' votes would count. That's what EQUALVOTE.US wants to argue in court. "Winner take all" violates the basic principle of equality.

Edited to add: The $250,000 they hope to crowdfund is not to pay for lawyers -- they are working pro bono. The money is for all the other work that goes into building the case.

[brendacoupons]

6. That's not how Nebraska and Maine do it

They do it by congressional district for the EVs that represent their number of House members, and by state popular vote for the EVs that represent their two Senators.

Using your argument, the two state-wide EVs are unconstitutional.

Also, using your argument, Senatorial elections are unconstitutional.

Hell, using your argument, ALL elections are unconstitutional.

[End Of The Road]

10. Sorry I got details wrong about NH & ME, BUT...

...this is not MY argument. This is being attempted by EQUALCITIZEN.US and EQUALVOTE.US. Please don't shoot the messenger. EQUALVOTE.US has FAQs, please google it. They think they have a shot at making a case, OK? Isn't that worth a little time?

[brendacoupons]

11. I read their FAQs and they contradict themselves re: ME and NE n/t

[brendacoupons]

7. It's hard to take the effort seriously when they contradict themselves

We believe the method all but two states use — ”winner take all” — unconstitutionally renders the votes of citizens unequal.

The clear implication here is that those two states - Nebraska and New Hampshire - allocate their EVs in what the author believes is a constitutional manner. But later on the page...

4. Would states be able to allocate their Electoral College votes by congressional district rather than winner-take-all at the state level?
No. The same principle that shows why winner-take-all at the state level violates equal protection shows why allocation by congressional district violates equal protection.

[jmowreader]

9. Smells like a right-wing plot to kill the West Coast and NY as Democratic strongholds

If you want to "make sure what happened to Hillary doesn't happen again," round up all the people who rigged the 2016 election and throw them in prison for the rest of their lives...and make it very clear that the same thing will happen to anyone who tries rigging an election from this day forward. Splitting states like California, Washington, Oregon, New York, and Pennsylvania - which we rely on for our victories, and which also have large swathes of red scarring them - does us no good whatsoever.

You want to fix this shit properly? Amend the Constitution to get rid of the electoral college.

[End Of The Road]

12. Keep on dreaming jmo

I'd like to see that happen, too. But there's not a chance...

[brendacoupons]

13. Yes, it carves up the states

Proportional allocation in 2016 would have resulted in no one getting to 270, and the election being thrown to the House.

Hillary: 256
Trump: 250
Others: 32