Opinion For the Americans who supposedly wants to change U.S Electoral laws...

[Arkain2K]

...particularly with the elimination of the Electoral College as well as mandating additional requirements for Presidential candidates (like tax returns or bill of health), why aren't you campaigning hard right now for the proposals currently on the table in Congress to implement new Electoral laws that would apply to everyone in future U.S elections?

There's a whole year left on the calendar to make rule changes before the next game day. Once the match begins with the same set of rules that ALL participants agrees to, please don't whine about said rules only AFTER you lost the game - and then forget all about it again for the next 4 years.


Noteworthy posts:

I just can't see it ever clearing the Senate. The current system gives a disproportionate say to small states and their Senators won't give that power up.

because how the current system of "winner takes all works" if a State is 51% republican and 49% democrat, logic dictates that electoral votes should be distributed accordingly, except that under winner takes all 51% of a State population decides for the entire State.

EC isnt the problem, the problem is when EC votes arent distributed proportionally.

 

[Trotsky]

Uhh, seriously? Because a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote, and half of the voting body actively benefits from the current system and explicitly cares only about retention of power.

 

[VivaRevolution]

...particularly with the elimination of the Electoral College as well as mandating additional requirements for Presidential candidates (like tax returns or bill of health), why aren't you campaigning hard right now for an actual Constitutional Amendment to include these new rules that would apply to everyone in future U.S elections?

Isn't this idea of getting enough states to sign onto getting rid of the electoral college just as legit?

I mean hell, going this route they could have a constitutional convention, and re-write the whole constitution, and that would be legal, and authority clearly granted by the constitution.

 

[Happy Man]

Uhh, seriously? Because a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote, and half of the voting body actively benefits from the current system and explicitly cares only about retention of power.

so instead of getting hard to work, you’d rather pout.

fits the leftist description to a T.

call the constitutional convention already. You know, work. Not subvert.

 

[Lead]

I don’t see a constitutional amendment going through for anything in this era, no matter how popular. It would get muddied somehow or people would be overly cautious about doing it.

 

[Lead]

Isn't this idea of getting enough states to sign onto getting rid of the electoral college just as legit?

I mean hell, going this route they could have a constitutional convention, and re-write the whole constitution, and that would be legal, and authority clearly granted by the constitution.

Yea, the current state plan is far easier and just requires a majority of the electoral colllege to flip it to mattering for the popular vote. I still don’t see that getting completed however, even though it’s fairly close.

 

[Oliver Clothesoff]

Because anyone with a brain knows the left's purpose behind getting rid of the EC is so that the liberals who live on the Coasts can make the rules for the whole country. California isn't excatly the game plan most people want to follow.

 

[Trotsky]

so instead of getting hard to work, you’d rather pout.

fits the leftist deception to a T.

call the constitutional convention already. You know, work. Not subvert.

There are groups already doing that, genius. Making your case in the public forum and explaining the improper limits on your efforts is a part of the effort. Which is why this thread is silly. It seems to suppose that political lobbying must be done in secret...which is entirely inconsistent with the processes and incentives of politics.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Yea, the current state plan is far easier and just requires a majority of the electoral colllege to flip it to mattering for the popular vote. I still don’t see that getting completed however, even though it’s fairly close.

Probably not, but I'm not against changing the rules to force the calculus to change. If we were currently using a popular vote system, I would be for going to a electoral college. This shit is all too gamed.

 

[Lead]

Probably not, but I'm not against changing the rules to force the calculus to change. If we were currently using a popular vote system, I would be for going to a electoral college. This shit is all too gamed.

Wait , what?

 

[second sight]

TS you misspelled Communist

 

[Whippy McGee]

Uhh, seriously? Because a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote, and half of the voting body actively benefits from the current system and explicitly cares only about retention of power.

Should it not win on it's merits? Apparently not, as you have exposed.

The Electoral College portion of the U.S. Constitution was the most detailed and lengthy part of our founding document for many very important reasons that hold true today. If this were not true, then you would have 2/3 of the states against it. The U.S.A. would Balkanize without it. It's a fool's goal, unless of course the goal is to break up the U.S.A.

 

[7437]

Because anyone with a brain knows the left's purpose behind getting rid of the EC is so that the liberals who live on the Coasts can make the rules for the whole country. California isn't excatly the game plan most people want to follow.

It is the game plan most want to follow.... literally that's what "most" means. A majority.

 

[Oliver Clothesoff]

It is the game plan most want to follow.... literally that's what "most" means. A majority.

Yeah well. Thank God we have it then. Our Founding Fathers must have seen the writing on the wall. I'd hate to let the folks in California do to our Country what they've done to my State, It's a literal shit show.

 

[Trotsky]

Should it not win on it's merits? Apparently not, as you have exposed.

Huh? Yes, it should succeed on its merits, obviously. Making the case for its merits and shaming lawmakers who foreclose the conversation in bad faith is a part of that process.

 

[VivaRevolution]

Wait , what?

I'm saying I don't think a popular vote system is inherently superior, I think the potential gain from changing the system, has to do with re-setting the board on a rigged game.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Because anyone with a brain knows the left's purpose behind getting rid of the EC is so that the liberals who live on the Coasts can make the rules for the whole country. California isn't excatly the game plan most people want to follow.

Why should having less popular ideas give a person greater say than having more popular ideas?

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Isn't removal of the electoral college basically a way to marginalise voters?

 

[nostradumbass]

Uhh, seriously? Because a constitutional amendment requires a two-thirds vote, and half of the voting body actively benefits from the current system and explicitly cares only about retention of power.

Uhhh, the house and senate are run by state and district and don't have an electoral college from which to benefit.

 

[Lead]

I'm saying I don't think a popular vote system is inherently superior, I think the potential gain from changing the system, has to do with re-setting the board on a rigged game.

If you think it’s rigged, I don’t see why you would think that would change anything.