GatewayRedbirds.com

A Message Board Dedicated to Discussing St. Louis Cardinals Baseball!
It is currently September 23 19, 1:38 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: August 6 19, 7:00 pm 
Offline
http://tinyurl.com/2e4x5hy

Joined: April 15 06, 6:25 pm
Posts: 24838
Location: St. Louis
Since Clinton was elected in '92, only one Republican was elected via the popular vote (George W. Bush re-election in '04). When are we getting rid of the antiquated electoral college system? The senate discussion is a whole nother animal, but it's in the similar antiquated vein (although understood it's about states' rights and being a republic). So how would one if they were so inclined even go about challenging these systems? Petition to the Supreme Court? Congress needs to add an amendment? Who would initiate it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 6 19, 7:49 pm 
Online
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7474
Location: Chicago, IL
Constitutional Amendment. To ratify:
2/3 of the house
2/3 of the senate
3/4 of the states


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 6 19, 8:13 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer
User avatar

Joined: October 12 06, 2:21 pm
Posts: 16910
Location: Baseball Ref Bullpen
33anda3rd wrote:
Constitutional Amendment. To ratify:
2/3 of the house
2/3 of the senate
3/4 of the states

IE: Never going to happen.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 6 19, 8:31 pm 
Offline
Hall Of Famer

Joined: April 25 06, 6:43 pm
Posts: 11476
Location: Austin
To the electoral college question, this, not a constitutional amendment is the answer.

The Senate situation is more hopeless as the Constitution says it can never be abolished even by amendment. But because the Constitution is a fundamentally bad system, new states can be added by a simple majority vote, so the route would mostly be to use that power aggressively until everyone agrees that it makes no sense and agrees to change. That said, partisan fighting surrounding the ill-conceived state admission system was the lead up to the Civil War, so not hugely encouraging.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 7 19, 4:57 am 
Offline
GRB's most intelligent & humble poster
User avatar

Joined: April 17 06, 11:25 am
Posts: 27129
I think I would be OK if states went to splitting their congressional EV’s by % of popular vote, with the senate EV’s going to the winner of the state, as some states have done. Not as big of fan of doing this by congressional district because of gerrymandering.

Did anyone ever do an analysis of how 2016 would have turned out in this scenario?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 7 19, 6:06 am 
Online
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7474
Location: Chicago, IL
Popeye_Card wrote:
I think I would be OK if states went to splitting their congressional EV’s by % of popular vote, with the senate EV’s going to the winner of the state, as some states have done. Not as big of fan of doing this by congressional district because of gerrymandering.

Did anyone ever do an analysis of how 2016 would have turned out in this scenario?


This is called the Proportional Popular Vote and you can make a map out of it on 270 To Win.

2016 would be really close
267 Trump
265 Clinton
6 Third Parties

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 7 19, 7:25 am 
Offline
MLB.TV Customer Support
User avatar

Joined: July 3 06, 2:19 pm
Posts: 8262
Location: Indianapolis
Popeye_Card wrote:
I think I would be OK if states went to splitting their congressional EV’s by % of popular vote, with the senate EV’s going to the winner of the state, as some states have done. Not as big of fan of doing this by congressional district because of gerrymandering.

Did anyone ever do an analysis of how 2016 would have turned out in this scenario?

My only problem with that is the limit on the number of representatives; a vote in Wyoming is worth a larger portion of an electoral vote than in California because we capped the size of the house 100 years ago. Everyone's vote should be worth the same for president no matter what state you live in.

I'm actually ok with having two senators per state but the power of the senate needs to be reigned in. Something that requires the senate to at least take action on things like SCOTUS nominations or bills passed by the house within a certain time frame and if not that bill/nomination is considered passed/approved (silence is consent) by the senate. And require the White House to fill judicial and cabinet vacancies in a specified time frame and if not, the house makes a nomination that is then voted on by the senate within a certain time frame. Changes like that prevent the Merrick Garland mess, prevents Moscow Mitch from blocking Obama's federal appointee's and preventing at-risk GOP senators from voting on things like election security and gun control.

I'd also like to see the house of representatives expanded and then not use districts but mixed member proportional - so more like the British Parliament where you vote for a party and not an individual so the Senate becomes your geographic representation. Boom; third party viability.

I'd be a good and kind benevolent dictator. Scout's honor.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: August 7 19, 7:37 am 
Online
Replies Authoritatively
User avatar

Joined: April 7 13, 9:45 am
Posts: 7474
Location: Chicago, IL
vinsanity wrote:
I'm actually ok with having two senators per state but the power of the senate needs to be reigned in. Something that requires the senate to at least take action on things like SCOTUS nominations or bills passed by the house within a certain time frame and if not that bill/nomination is considered passed/approved (silence is consent) by the senate.


Realistically, these tasks would be better handled by the House, since it is a better representation of the desires of the country as a whole, than by the Senate, which is purposefully skewed to give more power to where the deer live than to where the people live.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 6 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 33anda3rd and 9 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group