Will the Electoral College Become a Thing of the Past?

**txradioguy** · 08-09-2011, 05:03 AM

The Electoral College could be inching closer to extermination as California Gov. Jerry Brown signed a bill Monday that would award the state's 55 electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote.

The bill would take effect only if the states that hold a majority of the 538 electoral votes approve similar legislation. With California's addition, that total now stands at 132, almost 49 percent of the 270 needed.

Under the electoral college, people don't actually vote for president. They vote for electors, who then vote for president. It was developed as a compromise between those who wanted Congress to elect the president and those who wanted the president elected by popular vote.

California Assemblyman Democrat Jerry Hill, who introduced the bill, said the change would make California more relevant in presidential elections by forcing candidates to campaign in the state.

Former Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger twice vetoed previous versions of the bill. At the time, Schwarzenegger said he did not want California's electoral votes awarded to a candidate a majority of the state had not supported.

Seven states and the District of Columbia have passed similar bills.

The last person to win the presidency despite losing the popular vote was George W. Bush in 2000.

http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/20...est=latestnews

**txradioguy** · 08-09-2011, 05:03 AM

The Libs will do anything and everything they can to ensure the elections are rigged in their favor.

**Starbuck** · 08-09-2011, 08:55 AM

Indeed. I am sure you are right. The libs view this move as a move in their direction.

But wait. Clinton served two terms and never got 50% of the popular vote. He did get the most votes, just not 50%.

This move may go against liberals.

And we ain't heard howling if that happens.:)

**fettpett** · 08-09-2011, 08:57 AM

I see these bills being taken to court. The only way to change it is through an Amendment. Of course I know people that believe that the EC wasn't originally part of the Constitution

**Arroyo_Doble** · 08-09-2011, 09:01 AM

The Constitution is pretty clear on the issue of the power of the Several States with regards to choosing electors:

Article II

Section 1.

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

But due the apparent nature of this bill, that it would not go into effect unless other states participate, would it violate Article I Section 10?

Article I

...

Section 10.

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

Interesting legal issue. More than likely, the power of the Several States to determine how they choose their electors to the College wins out but I can see the argument where this is an unconstitutional alliance.

**fettpett** · 08-09-2011, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble

The Constitution is pretty clear on the issue of the power of the Several States with regards to choosing electors:

Article II

Section 1.

The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

But due the apparent nature of this bill, that it would not go into effect unless other states participate, would it violate Article I Section 10?

Article I

...

Section 10.

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

Interesting legal issue. More than likely, the power of the Several States to determine how they choose their electors to the College wins out but I can see the argument where this is an unconstitutional alliance.

The point of the bills are to do away with the EC, not how they are distributed, it's an underhanded bullshit scheme.

**Arroyo_Doble** · 08-09-2011, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by fettpett

The point of the bills are to do away with the EC, not how they are distributed, it's an underhanded bullshit scheme.

If a State can choose its electors as it sees fit, in this case based on the winner of the national popular vote, how is it "underhanded"?

**noonwitch** · 08-09-2011, 09:39 AM

My cousin from Slovenia finds the electoral college to be really confusing. I think we should keep it, because it confuses Europeans.

**txradioguy** · 08-09-2011, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by Arroyo_Doble

If a State can choose its electors as it sees fit, in this case based on the winner of the national popular vote, how is it "underhanded"?

Because it undermines the purpose of the Electoral College. It's not choosing electors under this scheme. It's appointing the electors basen not on the guidelines laid out in Constitution but on popular vote instead.

It's rigging the outcome to favor one political party.

**Arroyo_Doble** · 08-09-2011, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by txradioguy

Because it undermines the purpose of the Electoral College. It's not choosing electors under this scheme. It's appointing the electors basen not on the guidelines laid out in Constitution but on popular vote instead.

I am not sure what you mean by "guidelines" but the Constitution is pretty clear that the Several States can choose their electors however they want.

It's rigging the outcome to favor one political party.

How is it doing that? If this were in place in 2004, California would have given its electors to George W. Bush. How is it rigging anything?

The only argument I see against this (other than the political argument within the States themselves) is that it is an unconstitutional alliance.