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
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.
CentralMass
(15,265 posts)cstanleytech
(26,080 posts)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)Always thought that wasnt such a bad idea.
Polybius
(15,238 posts)A couple of hundred years ago we did exactly that.
truthisfreedom
(23,113 posts)lunamagica
(9,967 posts)Gothmog
(143,999 posts)EveHammond13
(2,855 posts)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)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.
C Moon
(12,188 posts)PatrickforO
(14,516 posts)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)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)The other way is Constitutional Convention route.
still_one
(91,963 posts)Polybius
(15,238 posts)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)Nothing to do with 3rd party candidates.
Polybius
(15,238 posts)No ones winning with 23 percent.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)To the winner of the popular vote, but at this time, a senate proposal by the Dems isnt going anywhere.
lindysalsagal
(20,440 posts)Is going to change.
Not holind breath, but glad to see.
Kaleva
(36,146 posts)Need 3/4 of both chambers to vote in favor plus 2/3s of the states.
MurrayDelph
(5,281 posts)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)
melm00se
(4,974 posts)this amendment has an almost zero chance of passing.