Can someone clarify for me why Presidential elections are winner take all.

[Bman]

I see nothing in the constitution that would make me believe for a second that the voting is supposed to be winner take all. I remeber being told that it was, and I'm sure a reason was given years ago in school. But, where is the law that says Presidential elections are winner take all?

[slothman]

That isn't exactly true.
You must get a majority of electoral votes but most states, 48 right now, do in fact have a WTA method.
I believe Maine and Nebraska are defined differently and not winner take all.
It's confusing.

[Bradley in DC]

That isn't exactly true.
You must get a majority of electoral votes but most states, 48 right now, do in fact have a WTA method.
I believe Maine and Nebraska are defined differently and not winner take all.
It's confusing.

Well done.

The Constitution says the state legislatures decide (note to Al Gore supporters--not state supreme courts).

Maine and Nebraska award their two presidential elector votes based on the number of their senate seats to the candidate who wins a plurality statewide and award the presidential electors from the respective congressional districts to the winner of a plurality in each congressional district. In practice, the states have never split their votes since adopting that system.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

[sratiug]

Well done.

The Constitution says the state legislatures decide (note to Al Gore supporters--not state supreme courts).

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html

And since the state legislature rights the laws for the state elections the state supreme court has total jurisdiction.

[Bman]

Thanks for the information. Now I'll get to a second point. Now we all know that change doesn't happen overnight. But wouldn't it make sense for the C4L to push an agenda of trying to get states to switch to district allocation of electoral votes. The reason I say this is that it seems to be a tactic that could slowly (yeah I know we are an impatient bunch) break the two party system. If people see third party candidates earning electoral votes they may start thinking that a third party could be a viable option.

Does this sound like a plausable idea, or am I standing in left field wearing scuba gear.

[american.swan]

Thanks for the information. Now I'll get to a second point. Now we all know that change doesn't happen overnight. But wouldn't it make sense for the C4L to push an agenda of trying to get states to switch to district allocation of electoral votes. The reason I say this is that it seems to be a tactic that could slowly (yeah I know we are an impatient bunch) break the two party system. If people see third party candidates earning electoral votes they may start thinking that a third party could be a viable option.

Does this sound like a plausable idea, or am I standing in left field wearing scuba gear.

This AND the senators in D.C. should be "chosen" by the state legislature, NOT THE PUBLIC.

[Bman]

This AND the senators in D.C. should be "chosen" by the state legislature, NOT THE PUBLIC.

Why?

[newyearsrevolution08]

"constitutional"

LOL

tell me ANYTHING you HAVE seen constitutional happening in our country recently?

[american.swan]

Why?

Because the states would control them.

[JosephTheLibertarian]

"constitutional"

LOL

tell me ANYTHING you HAVE seen constitutional happening in our country recently?

hmm. That DC gun thing? I don.t know. The fallacy of indirect DEMOCRACY. Yeah, this is a form of democracy.

[newyearsrevolution08]

hmm. That DC gun thing? I don.t know. The fallacy of indirect DEMOCRACY. Yeah, this is a form of democracy.

what did they really classify though

we can hunt for food and.... defend ourselves?

but what does that have to do with the true 2nd amendment?

[JosephTheLibertarian]

what did they really classify though

we can hunt for food and.... defend ourselves?

but what does that have to do with the true 2nd amendment?

hmm. All I know is that I never signed the Constitution ;) It'd be nice if government actually followed it. But when have they? The Constitution is nothing but a tool that they use. I mean, you draw up a contract, you give this government all of this power, and then you wonder why the government interprets the Constitution to its own advantage. haha. Where is th public recourse? Supreme Court? c'mon. Get real, doesn't the pres appoint the Supreme Court justices? Isn't that like ensuring that it's a rubber stamp for the government? Why would a pres of the ESTABLISHMENT appoint a justice that would oppose him? That's absurd to believe that. I bet the great justices were the runner ups, not what you're currently getting. 95% of your federal government is unconstitutional, do you really think the supreme court is going to do a god damn thing about that? fuck no

[Truth Warrior]

Think of it as a race ( "game" ). First one to 270 wins. ;)

[acptulsa]

I mean, you draw up a contract, you give this government all of this power, and then you wonder why the government interprets the Constitution to its own advantage. haha. Where is th public recourse? Supreme Court?

Actually, the public recourse is the ballot box. Ultimately the enemy is us. Yeah, Diebold is looking like the enemy more and more, but in the end if we demanded a more accountable system en masse they'd capitulate.

Keep up the educational efforts, folks. Things have gotten so bad that people will have no choice but to pay attention. The instinct for self-preservation is strong, and ears are opening up all over.

[brandon]

Why?

Direct election of US senators results in those with the most money and media coverage winning.

Election of US senators by the state legislators takes money and media out of the equation. It gives our state reps and state senators more power. It is relatively easy to become a state rep without having tons of money or friends in high places. Ultimately, the people who care are better represented.

[Bradley in DC]

And since the state legislature rights the laws for the state elections the state supreme court has total jurisdiction.

No, there is no constitutional basis for that statement. None.

[acptulsa]

Direct election of US senators results in those with the most money and media coverage winning.

Yes it does, but the old system was full of abuse as well. Power corrupts, unfortunately. Of all the amendments I'd like to do away with, this one doesn't top the list...


Ultimately, the people who care are better represented.

QFT. Here is the core of our educational message, in my mind.

[jabrownie]

No, there is no constitutional basis for that statement. None.

It's not based on a constitutional understanding, it's premised upon jurisdiction and federalism. There are a few areas of law that are traditionally left to the states, i.e. family law, interpreting the state constitution, etc. Federal courts may hear cases in those areas based on diversity but they will try them not based on federal precedent or federal law, rather they will attempt to guess how the state supreme court in the relevant state would rule. The state courts still have the ability to make future rulings counter to what the federal judges decided and the state rulings are determinitive.

It sounds like that's what the above poster was suggesting. If it's a state controlled area of law then the state courts can trump the federal courts. Uncertain if the topic in question is in fact one of the areas considered exclusive to the state, but the theory he is describing is an accurate one.

[SovereignMN]

Thanks for the information. Now I'll get to a second point. Now we all know that change doesn't happen overnight. But wouldn't it make sense for the C4L to push an agenda of trying to get states to switch to district allocation of electoral votes. The reason I say this is that it seems to be a tactic that could slowly (yeah I know we are an impatient bunch) break the two party system. If people see third party candidates earning electoral votes they may start thinking that a third party could be a viable option.

Does this sound like a plausable idea, or am I standing in left field wearing scuba gear.

I don't like it that idea, personally. All it would do is reduce the power and influence of the states.

[Alawn]

This AND the senators in D.C. should be "chosen" by the state legislature, NOT THE PUBLIC.

The Constitution used to say that senators were chosen by the state legislatures but unfortunately the 17th Amendment changed it and screwed over the country.



There is no constitutional requirement for how the electoral votes of a state are divided. That is completely up to the states. They can make it winner take all or proportional but only two have proportional. They don't even have to have any election for president. The state could legally decide to have the state legislature cast electoral votes without any public vote.

[Highland]

I think it is that old adage...the tyranny of the majority.

[brandon]

The state could legally decide to have the state legislature cast electoral votes without any public vote.

This would be great. I plan on running for state rep in a decade or so, and I will defintely push this issue.

[slothman]

I think it is that old adage...the tyranny of the majority.

That's why I like the similar phrase:
"Rule of the majority but rights of the minority."

[V3n]

This has bugged me since 1992:

In 1992:

Clinton won the election with 370 electoral votes and 45 million votes to Bush's 168 electoral votes and 39 million votes, and Perot's 0 electoral votes and 20 million votes.


That means that 59 million people wanted someone other than Bill Clinton as President and only 45 million people did want him.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_1992

[brandon]

This has bugged me since 1992:

In 1992:


That means that 59 million people wanted someone other than Bill Clinton as President and only 45 million people did want him.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Clinton_presidential_campaign,_1992

When you include the nonvoters it becomes truly absurd.

[sratiug]

No, there is no constitutional basis for that statement. None.

There is no constitutional basis for your statement. None.

[Bman]

Direct election of US senators results in those with the most money and media coverage winning.

Election of US senators by the state legislators takes money and media out of the equation. It gives our state reps and state senators more power. It is relatively easy to become a state rep without having tons of money or friends in high places. Ultimately, the people who care are better represented.

I'm not talking about senators or congressmen. I'm talking about how we vote for a President. Why would I want the state legislature to cast my vote for President?

No what I am saying is that if Electoral votes for Presidential Candidates were cast strictly by District rather than winner take all, Third parties could start making in roads. They could focus on a smaller target and grow from there. Plus when people started seeing a Third party start to accrue votes they might just say, "Hey this party is viable".

Now I've heard an argment also that it would lower state power. Well, It would strenghten District power which is better yet when talking about representaion.

[RickyJ]

I see nothing in the constitution that would make me believe for a second that the voting is supposed to be winner take all. I remeber being told that it was, and I'm sure a reason was given years ago in school. But, where is the law that says Presidential elections are winner take all?

If the winner doesn't take all then how do you suppose we divide up a president's term, by percentage of vote they get? That might not be a bad idea actually, but I think it has always been winner take all.

[Bman]

If the winner doesn't take all then how do you suppose we divide up a president's term, by percentage of vote they get? That might not be a bad idea actually, but I think it has always been winner take all.

Terms would still be terms but, In germany the represenatives in Congress are actually allocated by the percent vote a party gets. So for example if the Libertarian party got 10% of the vote 10% of our Represenatives would be Libertarian. Now I would never go to that extreme, but since representaion is done by district, I would think it only fair that the representaion would hold true for how people decide to vote for President.

[Alawn]

I'm not talking about senators or congressmen. I'm talking about how we vote for a President. Why would I want the state legislature to cast my vote for President?

No what I am saying is that if Electoral votes for Presidential Candidates were cast strictly by District rather than winner take all, Third parties could start making in roads. They could focus on a smaller target and grow from there. Plus when people started seeing a Third party start to accrue votes they might just say, "Hey this party is viable".

Now I've heard an argment also that it would lower state power. Well, It would strenghten District power which is better yet when talking about representaion.

Going to a national popular vote lowers state power. Changing how you divide each states vote does not. As long as you keep the number of electoral votes a state gets equal to the number of house and senate members then it doesn't matter how you divide it. The state has the same amount of power. It is changing to a popular vote that people don't like. Because small states lose power and large states gain power. A lot of people would be open to a district winner take all breakdown kind of like how CA did its Republican primary. A proportional STATE popular vote would be ok too (If you get 10% of the state popular votes you get 10% of the electoral votes but rounding might be a problem in small states). Most states just don't do it and there isn't enough of a push for them to change something they have been doing for so long.

[Bman]

Going to a national popular vote lowers state power. Changing how you divide each states vote does not. As long as you keep the number of electoral votes a state gets equal to the number of house and senate members then it doesn't matter how you divide it. The state has the same amount of power. It is changing to a popular vote that people don't like. Because small states lose power and large states gain power. A lot of people would be open to a district winner take all breakdown kind of like how CA did its Republican primary. A proportional STATE popular vote would be ok too (If you get 10% of the state popular votes you get 10% of the electoral votes but rounding might be a problem in small states). Most states just don't do it and there isn't enough of a push for them to change something they have been doing for so long.

Yeah I certainly am not advocating poular vote. I'd want the vote to be by district. Which would keep states electoral votes current.