« Ahmari and French Debate | Main | The Downton Abbey Movie »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"there is no surer way to get me to vote for Trump than to attempt to subvert the Electoral College."

Same here. That, and attacks on the First Amendment.

A while back the Babylon Bee had a headline that said something like "Democrats Seek to Close Loopholes in Constitution that Allow Republicans to Win."

That's hyperbole for humor's sake, of course, but there's an element of truth to it, unfortunately.

A lot of truth. The Bee is frequently brilliant. They had a lot of fun with Snopes fact-checking some of their satire.

"attacks on the First Amendment"--right, that and a lot of other things keep me from voting from almost any Democrat. But living in a very Republican state gives me the luxury of voting 3rd party as a statement without assisting the Dems. The proposed end run around the electoral college takes that away, though. If it's a national popular vote, I have to pick one side or the other, and unfortunately it's not a very difficult choice.


"...and unfortunately it's not a very difficult choice."

That's what I think too.

I get it. :-)

I remain a registered Republican only so I can vote in the (closed) primaries, and the candidates I vote for never win. (Kasich was my choice in 2016. I don't remember if he even survived until the Pa. primary.)

I've sat the last two presidential elections out, and even our last Senate election was pretty bad as far as the choices went.

My state has open primaries, a pretty bad practice, but it's kept me from ever having to formally register with a party. Though in some elections I do have to state at the polls which party I'm voting in.

Interesting piece that talks about reforming the Electoral College:

The Electoral College system governing us today, as delineated in the 12th Amendment, is primarily the result of congressional deliberations in 1803, which revised the original system adopted at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. ...

At first, the system devised in 1803 produced results generally consistent with the 12th Amendment’s original intent. But over time, the amendment began to lose its majoritarian moorings.

The primary reason was a major transformation in the methods that states use for appointing their Electoral College members. Before the 12th Amendment, most often a state’s legislature voted directly for Electoral College electors, which was consistent with the principle of majority rule. When states let citizens vote for the electors, they took steps to make sure that the chosen electors still represented the majority of the state’s voters, as well. ...

All of this began to change with the rise of the plurality winner-take-all system, in which all of a state’s electors are awarded to the candidate who receives the highest number of votes in the state—even if that candidate receives only a plurality of the popular vote. ...

Today, 48 states rely on the plurality winner-take-all system to select their presidential electors. It has long been the norm. But it is also a system the Jeffersonians would find entirely objectionable insofar as it empowers a party and a candidate that lack a majority of votes. ...

Why have we have seen un-Jeffersonian results with accelerating—and alarming—frequency, whereas previous periods were largely immune? The answer is that third-party candidates have become more common. When there are only two candidates, the plurality winner is necessarily also a majority winner, but not so when there are three or more candidates on the ballot. ...

It is the states that have the power to restore the Electoral College to its original intent—and to ensure that it better represents the will of the American people. To do so, they must commit themselves to this majority-rule principle: No candidate receives all of a state’s electoral votes unless the candidate gets a majority of the state’s popular votes.

Well, I don't have the patience to absorb the details of that. Could be reasonable proposals, but I'm a little suspicious because there are hints that the author sees a straight national majority as the correct end. Seems to think there's something wrong if it goes the other way.

Anyway, what I'm opposed to is not any or all reform of the system, but the attempt to establish a direct national popular vote. I'm a little surprised that people are clamoring for that because the most recent instance didn't go their way. They seem certain that the future is on their side and a national popular vote would always go their way. Short-sighted to put it mildly.

This is what I'm talking about--this is what would make me vote for Trump:


Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.


Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)