As far as I understand the system in the US: with first-past-the-post and the gerrymandering that is possible these days with all the data gathered from social media, the only thing you're doing there is to throw your vote away.
Those two things would have to be broken down first. But unfortunately for the people in the US both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party would rather keep that system and abuse it towards their own goal than to get rid of it.
Gerrymandering refers to the drawing of congressional districts. It has nothing to do with presidential voting, which is by state.
Perhaps what you are referring to is 'winner-take-all'. That is not mandated by the Constitution, which says the states are to choose their electors 'in the manner of their choosing'. There is always a lot of wailing about winner-take-all. Of course, what the whiners really mean is OTHER states should get rid of winner-take-all. For instance, after the 2016 election there w
Interestingly, it is almost all blue states that have signed on to the "National Popular Vote Interstate Compact". The approach if 270EV states adopts it turns the US into a popular vote system instead of a EC system. NY is one of the states that has adopted the compact. I think the compact has around 250 right now if you count pending states. EC could be supplanted without a constitutional amendment with this approach.
That thing is nothing but a grandstanding joke by the left. It has no legal force behind it, and is possibly illegal itself. If you think for one second that a legislature is going to direct its electors to vote against what its own constituents want, you are insane. As soon as an election went the opposite of what a state wants, it will ignore that compact so fast your head will spin. And since compacts between the states are illegal without the approval of Congress, and the Constution says the state L
From wikipedia: The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Which means, for instance, if the people in NY voted for a Democrat, but a republican won the nationwide popular vote, the NY legislature would appoint electors who will vote for the republican, the opposite of what the vo
Republicans in state legislatures are actively talking about just that. By delaying accurate vote counting and relying on claims of voter fraud/irregularities with no evidence, they can supplant a potential Biden result and nominate their own electors to the Electoral College, who would of course then vote for Trump.
That thing is nothing but a grandstanding joke by the left. It has no legal force behind it, and is possibly illegal itself.
None of this is clear. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 says, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors". Generally state legislatures have broad constitutional authority to choose how electors are selected, including deciding against a winner-take-all policy as well as forcing unfaithful electors to vote against their personal conscience or to allow electors to vote their personal conscience in opposition to the state popular vote. All of this is
I just asked myself... what would John DeLorean do?
-- Raoul Duke
green (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Those two things would have to be broken down first. But unfortunately for the people in the US both the Democratic Party and the Republican Party would rather keep that system and abuse it towards their own goal than to get rid of it.
I am not sure what could be done against that
Re: (Score:3)
Gerrymandering refers to the drawing of congressional districts. It has nothing to do with presidential voting, which is by state.
Perhaps what you are referring to is 'winner-take-all'. That is not mandated by the Constitution, which says the states are to choose their electors 'in the manner of their choosing'. There is always a lot of wailing about winner-take-all. Of course, what the whiners really mean is OTHER states should get rid of winner-take-all. For instance, after the 2016 election there w
Re:green (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
That thing is nothing but a grandstanding joke by the left. It has no legal force behind it, and is possibly illegal itself. If you think for one second that a legislature is going to direct its electors to vote against what its own constituents want, you are insane. As soon as an election went the opposite of what a state wants, it will ignore that compact so fast your head will spin. And since compacts between the states are illegal without the approval of Congress, and the Constution says the state L
Re: (Score:2)
The point of it is to direct the electors to vote the way their constituents want, as evidenced by factual counting of votes.
Whatever you were on about is just made up nonsensical bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
From wikipedia: The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) is an agreement among a group of U.S. states and the District of Columbia to award all their electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia.
Which means, for instance, if the people in NY voted for a Democrat, but a republican won the nationwide popular vote, the NY legislature would appoint electors who will vote for the republican, the opposite of what the vo
Re: green (Score:2)
Republicans in state legislatures are actively talking about just that. By delaying accurate vote counting and relying on claims of voter fraud/irregularities with no evidence, they can supplant a potential Biden result and nominate their own electors to the Electoral College, who would of course then vote for Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
That thing is nothing but a grandstanding joke by the left. It has no legal force behind it, and is possibly illegal itself.
None of this is clear. Article 2, Section 1, Clause 2 says, "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors". Generally state legislatures have broad constitutional authority to choose how electors are selected, including deciding against a winner-take-all policy as well as forcing unfaithful electors to vote against their personal conscience or to allow electors to vote their personal conscience in opposition to the state popular vote. All of this is