Thursday, November 15, 2012

Electoral COLLAGE? What do you think?


    ®
    An American Cyber-Column

    Electoral Collage

    Rich Galen
    Wednesday November 14, 2012



    Z:  SOMETHING needs to change with the Electoral College;  what do you think or Rich's idea:

  • The 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (which superseded a large section of Article II, Section 1) suggests says that the ballots of the electors in the several states having marked their ballots for President and Vice President shall
    "transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted."
  • On or about January 6, 2013 (probably January 7th or 8th as the 6th is on a Sunday) that counting will take place and Barack Obama will be declared President and Joe Biden will be declared Vice President.
  • That part we know all too well. What we don't pay much attention to is the original (and un-amended) language of Article II, Section 1 which states:
    "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress"
  • Note, the Constitution does not prescribe that the candidate with the most votes in a given state be granted all of the Electors. It leaves the "Manner" of selection up to the State Legislatures.

  • Indeed, if the State Legislature of Upper Iguana determined that its Governor should choose the electors, then a popular vote would be unnecessary as he (or she) could pick electors for what ever candidate he (or she) desires.
  • Or, Upper Iguanians might decide to let the Legislators themselves choose the Electors.
  • Granted, either of these is unlikely in any real state except for Illinois, but it would be possible.
  • The current system is well known: 48 states and the District of Columbia award all of a states' Electors to the candidate that wins the majority of the votes in that state.
  • The other two states, Nebraska and Maine have a better plan: They award Electors by Congressional District. Nebraska has three Congressional Districts; Maine has two.
  • The winner in each CD gets that Elector and the candidate with the most votes statewide gets the Electors awarded for the two Senate seats.


  • I have no idea what the effects on the 2012 election would have been if all 50 states and DC had adopted that concept and it doesn't matter because both sides knew the rules going in.
  • It does seem, though, that awarding Electors by CD would put more than eight or nine states in play every four years.
  • In California, which has 55 EVs, Romney would have had a shot at as many as 16 Electors in Districts likely to be represented by Republicans.
  • Similarly, in Texas Obama might have picked up as many as 12 of the 38 EVs available there.
  • The direct election of the President would likely mean that all of the attention would be paid to the high population areas: New York City, LA, Chicago, Houston, Miami and so on. The smaller cities and towns would be left out in the cold.
  • There may be some very good reason that I'm missing that argues against a Congressional District selection of Electors, but I can't think of it.
  • Not every CD would go for the Presidential candidate whose party is represented by the Member of Congress, so it is not a direct one-to-one relationship.


  • I understand it would make it much harder for the networks to "call" a state the moment the polls close based upon exit polls, but the method of electing a President shouldn't be designed for the convenience of the national press corps.
  • Over the next days or weeks researchers will have voting results that are granular to be able to determine what would have happened if the CD system were in place in 2012; but it wasn't so the two campaigns didn't design their efforts to reflect it.
  • The Constitution allows State Legislatures to determine the method of choosing Electors, so this system doesn't need a Constitutional amendment; it could be done in the next few months.
  • If you didn't get around to subscribing last month, please go here .
  • On the Secret Decoder Ring page today: A short history of methods of choosing Electors, and a Mullfoto of Mullings Central.

21 comments:

They Say/We Say said...

I'm still seeking the inner thoughts of the Federal Reserve/Knights Templars/King George Masons, and how/what was put in the drinking water, that the Public was persuaded - to Amend the Constitution for having the Senators ELECTED; by the same Congressional Districts; albeit the Senatorial "Districts" seem to cover a larger portion of their States, respectively.
A lot of cloak and dagger went on in the first few years of the New 20th Century. The Rocca-fellers, and Carnigee were New Money; but Chase was from the old school, and none of the three mentioned were any competition against the King George Masons who wanted to follow up on the Central Government thingy/Central Banks thingy. In fact The New Money helping out the Debts of the Government was as it seemed to piss off the Federal Reserve cloak and dagger crowd.
So the Senators had to be bought off. That required that the Amendment to change the States from Appointing their Senators, to Putting them UP for SELL!
Now it seems that the Electoral College have fallen in to the same clutches. So to speak.

Silverfiddle said...

If each state apportioned electors by congressional district, Obama would have lost this election. I like the idea because, as you say, it puts more states in play.

I positively hate the plans to scrap the electoral college. Candidates would campaign in only the top 10-20 urban centers, throw a lot of goodies around, and election over.

Joe said...

I agree with TS/WS. Senators should never have been elected. Their job has been changed from the original intent, which was to insure the states' voice in the federal government, to a horse race.

The Electoral College needs to be changed, but as Silverfiddle says, not eliminated.

-FJ said...

There may be some very good reason that I'm missing that argues against a Congressional District selection of Electors, but I can't think of it.

It's very simple. All it takes is one BIG state (like California) to move to a "winner takes all" system to hold undo sway over the national outcome.

conservativesonfire said...

CHanges to the manner in which state allocate their electoral vote is risky business, in my opinion. Alloting by the results of each congressional district, as Silverfiddle says would have worked in Romney's favor this time. The electoral college was an attempt by the founders to give the smaller states a bigger voice and not allow the bigger state to run over the smaller states.. The allocation of electoral votes really is a States Rights" issue.

Z said...

I'd be happy if we could just absolutely count on legal elections in our country again....
where all vote the same way and, once one has shown unalterable proof and been 'swiped' into the system (by ID card of voting card), one can't vote again.

Why aren't Americans angry that more people voted in some precincts than listed...mostly where Obama won?

Or how about the FACT that states with voter ID voted Conservative?
Are leftwingers too dumb to get IDs? They were given to people free, etc......this proves something.

in Germany, one uses an ID card, swipes it into a machine and can't vote again. Voila.

Mark Adams said...

I agree with SF that we should not do away to the EC.
I'd say reform it so my vote goes to my choice.
In saying that, it is meant that with in a states numbers of electors, if Romney won 60% of the popular vote, he wins 60% of the electors. (Rounded, of course, the rest go to the other... This wouldn't leave it up to one or two states to decide the outcome and it’s close to a direct vote by the people as you can get without doing away with the Electoral College.

FrogBurger said...

How about we get rid of the presidency and find a different mechanism for the executive so states have more power :)

The executive could be the governors themselves or a subset of them rotating.

This way it makes sure local democracy is even more respected.

I'm dreaming obviously b/c that would be a major constitution shift.

Teresa said...

I also agree with Silver. We shouldn't do away with the electoral collage. I think you posted a great idea that would ultimately help conservatives/Republicans to win elections.

Impertinent said...

We really need to start at the real problem. These lifetime hacks, POS that make a career out of the Senate or Congress.

Constantly unchallenged, voting themselves perks, salary increases, medical benefits, life time pensions....COLA's, travel, office staff funds...franking...and too many other privileges that we...the peasants break our backs to pay for.

No wonder they spend millions to get the job...they're set for LIFE...ARE YOU?


The founders didn't want a monarchy...or royalty...which is what we have now. Privileged princes and princesses that are the true vampires and parasites. Think about how may days in a year they really "work"?

They get more time off than school teachers. Then...without fail...they get elected poor...and wind up millionaires due to crooked insider information and trading. The hell with us...every scummy lobbyist is eager to feather their nests....for a price.

Why the hell we deride, hate and mock self made millionaires or entrepreneurs is beyond me.

Most of them made their fortunes legally...and with lots of hard work and risk. These elected POS...get special treatment cause they're..."special".

No wonder these sleazy toads have a disapproval rating of 88% or more. We don't trust them....and they know it and still...laugh and get elected.

They are the problem kids....

We were supposed to have a citizen army....and citizens who gave their time and service to their country for the privilege of serving the PEOPLE...in Congress. What we have are disconnected elitist millionaire law makers that....SCREW all of us...every day. The outspend...they haven't a clue as to what we peons need...or any idea of what our lives are like.

They're way above all that once they hit those Capitol steps.

FrogBurger said...

Imp, you are so right.

I'm watching this fiscal cliff and it's the same [beep] all over again.

Impertinent said...

@Frogburger

Mon ami...do you think we'll ever have our own "Bastille Day"? God knows it's long overdue friend. And if we do it the Texas way....these assholes...would all be hung in the city square. They're really no different or less evil and corrupt...than Saddam....when we snapped his neck.

I think France turned out OK after Louis was purged...don't you?

JonBerg said...

FB

I find your idea interesting.

Impertinent said...

One more thing...it's not only these crappy, corrupt lifer pols we have...we have a more serious problem with our military leaders....and our armed forces in general.

As a vet...I know damn well that our current people under arms...have to be stunned by Petraeus and the rest of the high command...will we see a revolt? Will we see an army turning to insurrection?


"Misbehavior, double standards and outright criminal acts have become epidemic among our senior officers. There have been dozens of investigations or prosecutions. Our nation’s military leadership is sick."


We know know...that this man too...was a fake and a fraud.

Impertinent said...

What's wrong with us?

We now know that our "leaders" are lying to us...are covering their dirty asses...Rice, Obama, Holder ( again ) with their filthy coverups.

We no longer have leaders we look up too...we have corrupt, vain, venal, lying scumbags in charge. Whether they wear stars...on their shoulder boards....mission ribbons....airborne patches or the honorarium of President or Senator.

Impertinent said...

Instead of going easier on the generals, they should face harsher penalties than the captains.

Generals know better. But their sense of entitlement has murdered their sense of duty, honor, country.

Which by now...we all know is secondary to their perks and pensions.

Ducky's here said...

I'm watching this fiscal cliff and it's the same [beep] all over again.

------
Buy the dip, Froggy.

Z said...

Ducky, wake up...we're in trouble and spending more and more isn't going to help anything.


Hey, everybody; 11 1/2 hours of solid GO GO GO at work today.........SOLID....so I'm a little brain weary.

Heard something about Hillary not testifying till after the hearings. can I be THAT brain weary? WHAT IS HAPPENING?



man

FrogBurger said...

Buy the dip, Froggy.

Snooze.

beamish said...

"We lost the election! We need to change the Constitution!"

Does this leftist song have any more verses?

JonBerg said...

While I understand the purpose of the EC, I don't completely understand its inner workings. As a component of the National Election it appears to lack uniformity, as do actual voting procedures, from state-to-state. The latter seems to have become quite loose. I consider these to be problems which need to be addressed. Further,I consider the ,apparent, [right] for anyone with a pulse to be allowed to vote, as well as canines and dead folks, to be of paramount concern. As disgusting or implausible as this may sound,to some, (I don't care) the, so called,[right] should be buttressed with [responsibility]. Accordingly there should be a certified National Voters ID Card obtained, at minimum, by:

1) Absolute proof of citizenship

2) Photo and other identification held to the same standard as a Passport

3) Passing an examination of rudimentary principals of: Civics, American History and Economics


I'm not as interested in hearing about why these things can't be done as I am about why they shouldn't be done.