No - only because that would require changing the Constitution, and who knows what they would get up to if we allowed that.
After all, the public didn't want to do away with the Articles of Confederation ... they just wanted to strengthen the federal government a bit. Instead, they got a whole new system of government, under a brand new Constitution.
I'm okay with states regulating their own Electoral College, to vote by the national popular vote ... as it's already in the Constitution that each state regulates how their EC works.
Aren't Amendments to the Constitution CHANGING it Walt? Currently it's moot since the demented duck wipes his a** with it daily. So much for that! Thank you for your reply and Happy Friday to thee and thine! :)
So far, Amendments have added to the Constitution. The only one that subtracted from it, was to end prohibition - which was added by an Amendment.
(which, btw, should make people question the Constitutional authority of the federal government to have a "war on drugs" - since the "war on alcohol" took a Constitutional Amendment. But that's another discussion.)
To do away with the Electoral College wouldn't be a simple matter of removing that language from the Constitution. You would have to replace it with other language on how elections would work. THAT is the danger, especially as the Republicans and Democrats have proven their willingness to pass legislation making it virtually impossible for any other party to gain power - and limiting the People's ability to do "grass roots" campaigns to pass laws.
How come nothing is ever as simple as I expect it to be? So that would open up another can of worms and maybe make things even worse? I dunno Walt. How are other countries doing it? Is our way the best worst or middlest? Do other countries have this much drama going on? SIGH. Thank you for your thoughtful and informative reply. I'd like to ask question you could answer with great simplicity. Can you give me a hint what kind of question that could possibly be? Oh I know. How about "what's your favorite color"? AARRGGHH. I'm sorta kidding then again I'm sorta not!
How about this...award delegates by the percentage of the popular vote. One candidate gets 60% of the popular vote and 60% of the delegates. But repubs would hate that.
All would have been decided by the House of Reps because they would not have reached 50% of the required EC votes. Going by popular vote alone. You are right I would not like that.
This post was edited by my2cents at September 25, 2020 10:32 AM MDT
Because of the gerrymander built into the college. Most of the less populous states are in the centre - ruby red. Not all - RI is tiny and generally votes blue. But most.
Again....not a gerrymander. Gerrymanding is when a politican MOVES the district lines to make their office safer to defend. State lines do not move.
This post was edited by my2cents at September 25, 2020 10:32 AM MDT
You just struck gold E! I like it bigly. WHY? Because it makes SENSE and it is FAIR. Two concepts that seem to be irrelevant in current times. Thank you for your reply and Happy Friday to thee and thine! :)
I'm not American, but as an outsider, the way the delegates are chosen for the EC seems to be little short of lunacy. Districts won equals government in Australia, if neither major party achieves a simple majority then Parliament "hangs" and an agreement must be reached with the minor players on the cross bench to form government.
Between thee and me you are a far better "american" than millions of our so-called citizens. You keep up with what's going on even though you are many thousands of miles away and have other fish to fry. I appreciate it very bigly and always have. Setting that aside it amazes that crackpots come in all sizes from all nations. Why that is I can't possibly understand. How and why they end up in gubment is annoying as he** at best and a gawdawful tragedy at worst. We are currently at worst but that doesn't mean it can't get worser because it can and will and has and is. Sigh. Thank you for your reply R and Happy Friday to thee and thine. Is there some universal law that DEMANDS (with few exceptions) that politics be full of queer ducks schmucks and clucks? :)
This post was edited by RosieG at September 25, 2020 10:33 AM MDT
This is the 21st Century. The candidate which receives the most votes should be the winner because that is what the majority of the people in the state/country choose.
What am I going to do with you L? You are persistently LOGICAL and these days that brands you a target for silencing. Truth honor integrity LOGIC should be kept underground and quiet. Like the UNDERGROUND RAILROAD in the USA or the FRENCH RESISTANCE. Sigh. It's a humongously bigly embarrassing and dangerous mess we're in here in the states. It isn't getting any better. Do you have any idea WHY? Thank you for your reply! :)
It won't get any better unless and until we have someone leading this country who is more interested in the nation than in himself. I realize that you have to have a relatively big ego to think you can run the USA, but in Trump's case, his bankrupting four businesses, scamming the public with his university, failure to pay contractors who do work for him, using the court system to delay what he doesn't want to face, dipping into his charity for his personal and family benefit, etc. should have been big red flags for anyone who was thinking of voting for him that he wasn't capable of running anything other than his big mouth.
Walt O'Reagun 