|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Aug 31, 2024 10:15:41 GMT
Well, that didn't take nearly as long as I thought. It seems fairly clear straight away that it can be changed but only within each state. It wouldn't be possible to instigate a uniform system across the country. I do find it extraordinary that a country elects its national leader without having universal rules and can't think or anywhere else that applies to. I know the argument will be that these are in effect 51 separate contests that elect College members rather than the President directly but imagine the situation here if each constituency set its own rules. The difference between a federal state and a mostly centralised unitary state is not particularly difficult to understand.
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Aug 31, 2024 10:16:21 GMT
Well, that didn't take nearly as long as I thought. It seems fairly clear straight away that it can be changed but only within each state. It wouldn't be possible to instigate a uniform system across the country. I do find it extraordinary that a country elects its national leader without having universal rules and can't think or anywhere else that applies to. I know the argument will be that these are in effect 51 separate contests that elect College members rather than the President directly but imagine the situation here if each constituency set its own rules. The system could be changed nationwide but it would require a constitutional amendment, when you say that it could be changed within each state do you mean how they can decide how their electoral college votes are allocated? We have some variation there already with Maine and Nebraska allocating a vote to individual congressional districts The US system was designed to give states significant power and to not feel trapped and trampled over by the national government or states with the biggest populations, that’s how California and Wyoming each having two senators probably seems like an anomaly as well It’s arguable how well it all works in modern times but with the parts imbedded in the constitution it’s highly unlikely you could get the numbers needed for an amendment to things like the electoral college as too many states would be giving up power. Certainly there’s other federal systems where these type of things don’t exist but on the other hand the US is a uniquely large and diverse federal country so how well would any alternatives work?
|
|
J.G.Harston
Lib Dem
Leave-voting Brexit-supporting Liberal Democrat
Posts: 14,447
|
Post by J.G.Harston on Aug 31, 2024 10:20:39 GMT
I’m glad you confirmed what I was thinking… I though I was reading it wrong. The poll actually shows that the EC is remarkable UNpopular. Does anyone know if it's actually possible to remove the College and have a uniform kind of majoritarian system? Has the current one just evolved out of the original necessity or is it embedded somehow in the Constitution? Would it have to be prised from 'cold, dead hands'? Fairly simple. It's a constitutional provision, so just needs a constitutional amendment. Normal process. 2/3 approval of both houses, 3/4 approval of all states.
|
|
|
Post by timmullen on Aug 31, 2024 10:24:36 GMT
Does anyone know if it's actually possible to remove the College and have a uniform kind of majoritarian system? Has the current one just evolved out of the original necessity or is it embedded somehow in the Constitution? Would it have to be prised from 'cold, dead hands'? Fairly simple. It's a constitutional provision, so just needs a constitutional amendment. Normal process. 2/3 approval of both houses, 3/4 approval of all states. Actually there’s an option B: www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation(FWIW Tim Walz has signed Minnesota up to this)
|
|
|
Post by cathyc on Aug 31, 2024 10:41:03 GMT
Well, that didn't take nearly as long as I thought. It seems fairly clear straight away that it can be changed but only within each state. It wouldn't be possible to instigate a uniform system across the country. I do find it extraordinary that a country elects its national leader without having universal rules and can't think or anywhere else that applies to. I know the argument will be that these are in effect 51 separate contests that elect College members rather than the President directly but imagine the situation here if each constituency set its own rules. The difference between a federal state and a mostly centralised unitary state is not particularly difficult to understand. No it isn't, but the point here is that if states want their own system for electing its governor or local legislatures then that's fine. It's different if they're using different rules for what is essentially the same election. I know it's not a direct analogy but what if Scotland and/or Wales decided to use PR for Westminster elections? Or if they changed the rules on postal voting. Maybe even votes at 16.
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Aug 31, 2024 10:42:25 GMT
Fairly simple. It's a constitutional provision, so just needs a constitutional amendment. Normal process. 2/3 approval of both houses, 3/4 approval of all states. Actually there’s an option B: www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation(FWIW Tim Walz has signed Minnesota up to this) Yes and No. That option doesn't actually remove the electoral college it just alters how some states would allocate their members of the college. Also it would be entirely possible for states who signed up to change back when and if it suits them.
|
|
|
Post by eastmidlandsright on Aug 31, 2024 10:49:43 GMT
The difference between a federal state and a mostly centralised unitary state is not particularly difficult to understand. No it isn't, but the point here is that if states want their own system for electing its governor or local legislatures then that's fine. It's different if they're using different rules for what is essentially the same election. (1) I know it's not a direct analogy but what if Scotland and/or Wales decided to use PR for Westminster elections? Or if they changed the rules on postal voting. Maybe even votes at 16. (2) 1. They aren't the same election, they are 51 separate elections held on the same day. They are not electing the President but the presidential electors. There is no reason why the election of North Carolina's presidential electors need to be conducted identical to the election of Alaska's presidential electors. 2. Then they would quite clearly be acting ultra vires as such authority has not been devolved to them.
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Aug 31, 2024 10:50:53 GMT
Fairly simple. It's a constitutional provision, so just needs a constitutional amendment. Normal process. 2/3 approval of both houses, 3/4 approval of all states. Actually there’s an option B: www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation(FWIW Tim Walz has signed Minnesota up to this) It’s not a particularly straight forward or uncontroversial idea though, and it must be questionable how many of the states would stick to that pact if the side that is perceived to benefit from the electoral college was to change
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 31, 2024 10:53:31 GMT
Yes and No. That option doesn't actually remove the electoral college it just alters how some states would allocate their members of the college. Also it would be entirely possible for states who signed up to change back when and if it suits them. Quite: and that's an entirely serious possibility with elections so polarized (and so close) and with feelings on both sides running so high.
There are actually solid arguments for retaining the EC. It reflects the federal nature of the US, and it means that when an election is close, and potentially disputed, the uncertainty is confined to a small number of states on whose counts attention can then be focused. But imagine if in a national popular vote the margin was a small fraction of 1% - it would be chaos. And besides, if the popular vote were so close that there was genuine doubt about who had won, how would the NPV scheme cope with that?
If it were up to me I'd stick with the EC. I know it currently favours Republicans but that won't always be the case - these things even out over time.
|
|
|
Post by riccimarsh on Aug 31, 2024 11:01:55 GMT
Well, that didn't take nearly as long as I thought. It seems fairly clear straight away that it can be changed but only within each state. It wouldn't be possible to instigate a uniform system across the country. I do find it extraordinary that a country elects its national leader without having universal rules and can't think or anywhere else that applies to. I know the argument will be that these are in effect 51 separate contests that elect College members rather than the President directly but imagine the situation here if each constituency set its own rules. Some States have already agreed to basically switch to a popular vote format. Just not enough of them yet. It’s known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (snazzy name): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
|
|
|
Post by timmullen on Aug 31, 2024 11:03:12 GMT
The difference between a federal state and a mostly centralised unitary state is not particularly difficult to understand. No it isn't, but the point here is that if states want their own system for electing its governor or local legislatures then that's fine. It's different if they're using different rules for what is essentially the same election. I know it's not a direct analogy but what if Scotland and/or Wales decided to use PR for Westminster elections? Or if they changed the rules on postal voting. Maybe even votes at 16. Basically they can’t because the conduct of national elections is not a devolved power, so even if the Parliament/Senedd/Assembly were to pass legislation introducing such changes Westminster could/probably would veto it as they did with Scotland’s Gender Recognition legislation.
|
|
|
Post by cathyc on Aug 31, 2024 11:03:20 GMT
No it isn't, but the point here is that if states want their own system for electing its governor or local legislatures then that's fine. It's different if they're using different rules for what is essentially the same election. (1) I know it's not a direct analogy but what if Scotland and/or Wales decided to use PR for Westminster elections? Or if they changed the rules on postal voting. Maybe even votes at 16. (2) 1. They aren't the same election, they are 51 separate elections held on the same day. They are not electing the President but the presidential electors. There is no reason why the election of North Carolina's presidential electors need to be conducted identical to the election of Alaska's presidential electors. 2. Then they would quite clearly be acting ultra vires as such authority has not been devolved to them. 1. The Westminster elections here are for 650 separate elections held on the same day. 2. Then maybe devolve it.
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Aug 31, 2024 11:07:39 GMT
Well, that didn't take nearly as long as I thought. It seems fairly clear straight away that it can be changed but only within each state. It wouldn't be possible to instigate a uniform system across the country. I do find it extraordinary that a country elects its national leader without having universal rules and can't think or anywhere else that applies to. I know the argument will be that these are in effect 51 separate contests that elect College members rather than the President directly but imagine the situation here if each constituency set its own rules. Some States have already agreed to basically switch to a popular vote format. Just not enough of them yet. It’s known as the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (snazzy name): en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_CompactWhen you look at the list of states it’s difficult for it to not be seen as a partisan exercise considering they’re all heavily Democrat controlled. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Electoral College I can’t see how that would be sustainable
|
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,304
|
Post by The Bishop on Aug 31, 2024 11:09:29 GMT
You misread the poll, didn't you? Don't worry, we've all done it!
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Aug 31, 2024 11:14:44 GMT
When you look at the list of states it’s difficult for it to not be seen as a partisan exercise considering they’re all heavily Democrat controlled. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Electoral College I can’t see how that would be sustainable Watch that unravel if, by some fluke, Trump wins the popular vote but not the EC.
|
|
|
Post by stb12 on Aug 31, 2024 11:15:14 GMT
1. They aren't the same election, they are 51 separate elections held on the same day. They are not electing the President but the presidential electors. There is no reason why the election of North Carolina's presidential electors need to be conducted identical to the election of Alaska's presidential electors. 2. Then they would quite clearly be acting ultra vires as such authority has not been devolved to them. 1. The Westminster elections here are for 650 separate elections held on the same day. 2. Then maybe devolve it. Devolving it would be pretty chaotic, the US system we’re talking about is about electing an individual but they don’t have that much leeway with electing the legislative branch. Yes some states have been bringing in AV/Ranked Choice voting but ultimately they’re all still entitled to the same number of Senators and a set number of congressional districts How the separate UK nations could fit in PR within only being entitled to so many seats sounds like a headache to say the least
|
|
|
Post by cathyc on Aug 31, 2024 11:16:46 GMT
No it isn't, but the point here is that if states want their own system for electing its governor or local legislatures then that's fine. It's different if they're using different rules for what is essentially the same election. I know it's not a direct analogy but what if Scotland and/or Wales decided to use PR for Westminster elections? Or if they changed the rules on postal voting. Maybe even votes at 16. Basically they can’t because the conduct of national elections is not a devolved power, so even if the Parliament/Senedd/Assembly were to pass legislation introducing such changes Westminster could/probably would veto it as they did with Scotland’s Gender Recognition legislation. My post was badly worded and I wasn't making a suggestion that we have different rules in various parts of the country for the same election - and whatever people argue about the College being 50 separate elections it's clear that's not the case. It's the same vote at the same time for the same position. Using the Scotland and Wales examples was a way of showing how wrong the US rules are for electing a national office. Whatever the rules are they should be uniform and it would be wrong here if we did devolve it. How Holyrood and the Senedd are elected is an entirely different matter.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,589
|
Post by john07 on Aug 31, 2024 11:31:47 GMT
The test for the Electoral College would be if the Democrats won, say, 10 million more votes than the Republicans but still lost the presidency.
The Republicans have only won the Presidential popular vote once since the 1988 election of George H W Bush. That was in 2004. So one popular vote win in eight presidential elections for the GOP.
|
|
|
Post by islington on Aug 31, 2024 11:52:30 GMT
When you look at the list of states it’s difficult for it to not be seen as a partisan exercise considering they’re all heavily Democrat controlled. Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Electoral College I can’t see how that would be sustainable Watch that unravel if, by some fluke, Trump wins the popular vote but not the EC. That would be hilarious.
|
|
|
Post by hullenedge on Aug 31, 2024 12:43:57 GMT
You misread the poll, didn't you? Don't worry, we've all done it! I could swear that it was the other way around last night. Upon checking the 57-30 is correct and in line with previous polls. We discussed the EC at uni over 40 years ago. It's most unlikely to be abolished (same with Senate reform and extra states).
|
|