Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
10 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies

Amishman

(5,541 posts)
1. The electoral college is part of the Constitution, it is by definition Constitutional
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 03:40 PM
Dec 2016

It's right there in article 2.

Until we pass an amendment, it is something we are stuck with

 

Jim Lane

(11,175 posts)
5. Presumably the argument is that the Electoral College violates the Equal Protection Clause
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 04:23 AM
Dec 2016

Something that's "right there in" the Constitution as drafted in 1787 can be changed when we pass an amendment, as you recognize. It's not completely ludicrous to say that the Electoral College is inconsistent with the principles of the Fourteenth Amendment.

The biggest problem for this argument is a longstanding principle of construction: Repeals by implication are not favored. Particularly with something as momentous as the election of the President, it's too much of a stretch to read the fairly general language of the Fourteenth Amendment as impliedly repealing the specific procedures set forth in Article II.

 

HassleCat

(6,409 posts)
2. Maine and Nebraska
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 03:42 PM
Dec 2016

Proportional representation vs. winner take all. The court's would be hesitant to open that can of worms because it might open things up for minority parties and coalition governments.

 

Grey Lemercier

(1,429 posts)
7. you are conflating assigning EV's per congressional district with actual proportional representation
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 08:42 AM
Dec 2016

The US uses a Plurality/Majoritarian system, specifically First Past the Post. The person who gets the most votes wins that district. If EV's were allocated via each district, you still wouldn't have minor parties affecting the EV's. Positions in the House are allocated now via single member districts and there are NO 3rd parties represented in the House.

 

HassleCat

(6,409 posts)
9. That's the way it is now.
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 12:43 PM
Dec 2016

But the court's might start chipping away at the system, beginning with the way th EC is apportioned. If they decide to do it according to district, rather than by a state aggregate, the presidential election process would change, with different campaign strategies, etc. What might follow from that? An end to single member districts in some states? Sounds impossible, but we could experience some odd things in the next four years.

red dog 1

(27,648 posts)
3. K&R
Thu Dec 8, 2016, 05:31 PM
Dec 2016

Too bad Hillary Clinton hasn't already challenged the election, based on the Bush v Gore decision, as Lawrence Lessig writes.

Lessig sums up the Clinton campaign's lack of any post-election legal action well:
"It's striking to see how committed they are to allowing this train wreck to occur."


Crunchy Frog

(26,548 posts)
6. Maybe she could, but she won't. I'd just about stake my life on it.
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 06:03 AM
Dec 2016

That encapsulates one of her major failings as a candidate, as well as the overall failings of the Democratic establishment, who have sat back and watched this situation develop without doing a thing to try to stop it.

dmosh42

(2,217 posts)
8. She's not even challenging the Michigan vote totals, which by accounts reported had a huge amount...
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 08:57 AM
Dec 2016

of voting machines located in Detroit which did not function properly. And nobody knew about it before
election day? Bullshit!

sarisataka

(18,220 posts)
10. Please someone actually read
Fri Dec 9, 2016, 12:54 PM
Dec 2016

The Constitution.

The Electoral College is not unconstitutional because it is in the Constitution. The 14th Amendment will not apply because the people do not have the right to vote for the electors in the Constitution. The allocation of electors is clearly designated to the states.

The popular election is an amalgamation of the laws of 50 different states. Constitutionally there is no requirement to allow the people to vote for President. The argument that if one state allows their people to vote all must do the same also fails. If that were the case then every state would have to have absolutely identical laws, equal tax rates, equal speed limits Etc to ensure equal protection.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Hillary Clinton could hav...