https://www.npr.org/2019/02/24/69682777 ... -in-states
Democrats in Colorado and New Mexico are pushing ahead with legislation to pledge their 14 collective electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote — no matter who wins each state.
Democrats in Colorado and New Mexico are pushing ahead with legislation to pledge their 14 collective electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote — no matter who wins each state.
Except it is exactly the 'system' of separating the popular vote from the winner that gave that outcome. We wouldn't be having this discussion if that system did not exist, so I don't see how adding to the system is the correct course of action in your mind.Dave_LF wrote:Can I, personally? No. But do I feel comfortable saying such a thing is needed given the outcome the current system just produced? Absolutely.
But again, why is the solution to not remove that broken system rather than attempt to reinforce the broken system?Dave_LF wrote:Like I said, I don't know. But I am much more open to the idea of major reformation than I used to be. President Donald Trump represents such an utter failure of the system, I think we need to consider it fundamentally broken.
But let's be realistic, the only thing that actually would prevent that is to disregard votes, because the only reason Trump won was because people voted for him. Whether it's calculated via popular vote, or electoral votes, or some other system, it's because people voted that way. So the only system that would ensure that this never happens again is a system which removes people's votes entirely from consideration, and that is not a system I want.Dave_LF wrote:Because I believe that in general, removing the electoral college would make it easier for people like Donald Trump to wind up in charge, even though in the specific case of 2016, it would have (barely) worked out the other way.
Yes, but that goes beyond fixing our election process, that is changing significant parts of how our government works. I'm not even saying that would be bad, but it seems to go far beyond the scope of what Dave sounded like he was suggesting.Alatar wrote:Well, in many countries, people vote for parties and parties elect their own leader. Trump could never have been elected in Ireland for example. It just couldn't happen.
I believe the opposite. Electoral college makes it possible for a president to be elected with the minority of the popular vote but a tiny majority of voters in a handful of states. Gerrymandering and "winner takes all" vote allocation favor the Republican candidate.Dave_LF wrote:Because I believe that in general, removing the electoral college would make it easier for people like Donald Trump to wind up in charge, even though in the specific case of 2016, it would have (barely) worked out the other way.
But this is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, isn't it? It doesn't go into effect until states representing 270 electoral votes pass it.I'm not especially wild about that approach, as if it is just a few states that adopt that rule while the rest don't it could lead to even more bizarre results.