Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

pnwmom

(108,925 posts)
Tue Apr 2, 2019, 12:00 AM Apr 2019

Senate Dems try to kill Electoral College

Source: Politico

A group of Senate Democrats will introduce a constitutional amendment to abolish the Electoral College this week, the latest sign that idea is picking up mainstream support in the Democratic Party.

The amendment is being led by Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) and initially will be supported by Democratic Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Dianne Feinstein of California and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York, who is running for president. It will be introduced on Tuesday, according to a person familiar with the plans.

Read more: https://www.politico.com/story/2019/04/01/senate-democrats-electoral-college-1246521



This will be a very long process, but I'm glad they're bringing attention to the problem. Hillary won the popular vote by 2.9 million votes, but it could have been much worse. It is mathematically possible for someone to win the EC with only 23% of the popular vote.

https://www.npr.org/2016/11/02/500112248/how-to-win-the-presidency-with-27-percent-of-the-popular-vote

So we wondered: Just how few votes would a candidate need to win 270 electoral votes?

We decided to find out. A candidate only needs to win the 11 states with the most electoral votes to hit 270. Assuming only two candidates (a big assumption; see below) and that one candidate won all of those states by just one vote, and then didn't win a single vote in any of the other states (or D.C.), how many votes would that candidate have to win? It depends on how you do the math. Either way, it's far less than half.

Initially when we did this story, we found that if you start with the biggest-electoral-vote states, the answer is 27 percent. However, we have an update: as Andrej Schoeke very nicely pointed out to us on Twitter, there's another way to do it (via CGP Grey) that requires even less of the popular vote: start with the smallest-electoral-vote states. Our math went through a few iterations on this but by our final math, in 2012 that could have meant winning the presidency with only around 23 percent of the popular vote.
22 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Senate Dems try to kill Electoral College (Original Post) pnwmom Apr 2019 OP
Good. CentralMass Apr 2019 #1
Perhaps it should be changed so the popular vote elects the President but the EC elects cstanleytech Apr 2019 #2
When i was a small child i thought the loser of the election became VP. oldsoftie Apr 2019 #11
They used to Polybius Apr 2019 #13
Heh. truthisfreedom Apr 2019 #3
This should have been done a long time ago lunamagica Apr 2019 #4
We need to eliminate the electoral college Gothmog Apr 2019 #5
Rs need to learn: for every action, there will be an equal and opposite reaction EveHammond13 Apr 2019 #6
Who's getting "fucked back"? JustABozoOnThisBus Apr 2019 #10
Good: it worked for them last time, so I'm sure the GOPutin has plans to abuse the EC in 2020. C Moon Apr 2019 #7
I fully support this amendment. I will be calling both my US Senators this week PatrickforO Apr 2019 #8
The red states will insure it won't happen through a Constitutional ammendment. Why would they? still_one Apr 2019 #9
Actually it's 2/3 in both chambers AND 3/4's of the states. AncientGeezer Apr 2019 #16
Appreciate the correction. still_one Apr 2019 #17
Win with 23% of the popular vote? Polybius Apr 2019 #12
It's arrived at by person winning a certain combination of states by 1-vote each, to reach 270 EV mr_lebowski Apr 2019 #19
Oh, so something that's less likely than a meteor hitting us Polybius Apr 2019 #20
It's a better strategy than the one where states are pledging to give their EV's hughee99 Apr 2019 #14
Fingers crossed: dems must be willing to try and fail if anything lindysalsagal Apr 2019 #15
Headline of OP is misleading. No chance of that happening. Kaleva Apr 2019 #18
I'd rather reform it. This is what I just sent to Schatz and Feinstein MurrayDelph Apr 2019 #21
Political posturing melm00se Apr 2019 #22

cstanleytech

(26,080 posts)
2. Perhaps it should be changed so the popular vote elects the President but the EC elects
Tue Apr 2, 2019, 12:14 AM
Apr 2019

the VP?
That way we stop the whole putting our eggs in one basket election for President and the VP that we currently have.

oldsoftie

(12,410 posts)
11. When i was a small child i thought the loser of the election became VP.
Tue Apr 2, 2019, 07:09 AM
Apr 2019

Always thought that wasnt such a bad idea.

 

EveHammond13

(2,855 posts)
6. Rs need to learn: for every action, there will be an equal and opposite reaction
Tue Apr 2, 2019, 01:43 AM
Apr 2019

they want to fuck us at every turn by cutting the legs out from under democracy? expect to get fucked back.

JustABozoOnThisBus

(23,283 posts)
10. Who's getting "fucked back"?
Tue Apr 2, 2019, 06:57 AM
Apr 2019

This amendment has a snowball's chance in hell.

I don't think the Senate will pass it, maybe not even vote on it. I don't think any "red" states will vote to ratify.

The amendment "feels good", but I think it will go nowhere.

PatrickforO

(14,516 posts)
8. I fully support this amendment. I will be calling both my US Senators this week
Tue Apr 2, 2019, 02:26 AM
Apr 2019

Great idea!

And, if the GOP fights it, which of course they will, we can keep plugging with the National Popular Vote Compact, which has already been signed into law by states with a combined 189 electoral votes, meaning we just need a few more states (that add up to 270) and we'll get rid of the electoral vote even without an amendment.

The amendment is better, though, ultimately.

still_one

(91,963 posts)
9. The red states will insure it won't happen through a Constitutional ammendment. Why would they?
Tue Apr 2, 2019, 03:25 AM
Apr 2019

They would lose their leverage

You need either 2/3 of Congress or the states, and that isn't going to happen for the reason I stated

The red states will vote against it





 

AncientGeezer

(2,146 posts)
16. Actually it's 2/3 in both chambers AND 3/4's of the states.
Tue Apr 2, 2019, 11:22 AM
Apr 2019

The other way is Constitutional Convention route.

Polybius

(15,238 posts)
12. Win with 23% of the popular vote?
Tue Apr 2, 2019, 10:34 AM
Apr 2019

How so, with very strong Libertarian, Green and Independent candidates? They would have to get about 22% each, the Democrat 33%, and the Republican 23%. Seems impossible, unless you mean there are three or four strong third party candidates.

 

mr_lebowski

(33,643 posts)
19. It's arrived at by person winning a certain combination of states by 1-vote each, to reach 270 EV
Tue Apr 2, 2019, 12:27 PM
Apr 2019

Nothing to do with 3rd party candidates.

hughee99

(16,113 posts)
14. It's a better strategy than the one where states are pledging to give their EV's
Tue Apr 2, 2019, 10:51 AM
Apr 2019

To the winner of the popular vote, but at this time, a senate proposal by the Dems isn’t going anywhere.

lindysalsagal

(20,440 posts)
15. Fingers crossed: dems must be willing to try and fail if anything
Tue Apr 2, 2019, 11:14 AM
Apr 2019

Is going to change.

Not holind breath, but glad to see.

Kaleva

(36,146 posts)
18. Headline of OP is misleading. No chance of that happening.
Tue Apr 2, 2019, 12:12 PM
Apr 2019

Need 3/4 of both chambers to vote in favor plus 2/3s of the states.

MurrayDelph

(5,281 posts)
21. I'd rather reform it. This is what I just sent to Schatz and Feinstein
Wed Apr 3, 2019, 11:46 AM
Apr 2019

While the Electoral College is horribly flawed, rather than disband it, I think it should be reformed as follows:

Convert the Electoral College to become a double-representative model. Choosing numbers for example purposes:

1. Expand the EC votes to a large number, such as 10,000, distributed to states by number of eligible voters.
a. If a state, such as California, has 10% of the total number of eligible voters, they would be allocated 10%,
or 1,000, of the Electorates.
b. This would make the efforts of some states (such as Georgia) to remove eligible voters from their rolls a
disincentive, as it would reduce their number of Electorates.
2. Distribute the Electorates-per state based on the percentage of votes received by candidate.
a. If the Democratic candidate received 64% of the votes in the California example, he/she would receive
640 of California's 1000 Electorates.
b. Third-party candidates might only see 40 of those California votes, but it would be more-representative than
the 0% they get now.

I believe this approach would help address the non-representational problems of the current system, while also addressing the voter suppression issue, and not allowing a state (for example Florida) of reporting more votes than voters and skewing the race nationally.

Thank you for your time.

(my name here)

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»Senate Dems try to kill E...