Friam

Popular vote

Classic

List

Threaded

7 messages Options

Owen Densmore

Popular vote

Administrator

A friend visiting from Seattle mentioned a meme floating around there could give popular vote over electoral college w/o constitutional amendment.

It would take enough states whose electoral vote sum would be greater than 270. They would then have their electors vote the popular vote.

As nutty as it seems, it would work and likely be much easier than a constitutional amendment.

-- Owen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Owen Densmore

Re: Popular vote

Administrator

Seems like this is more widespread than I had thought:

Here’s how to do it: states can decide how they award their electoral vote, so if enough require their electors to vote for the winner of the nationwide popular vote (instead of who won in that state,) it would fix the problems of the Electoral College without needing to amend the Constitution.

http://www.commoncause.org/take-action/act/fix-the-broken-electoral-college-national-popular-vote.html

They go on to say it's not as far off as you might think:

This National Popular Vote compact wouldn’t take effect until enough states joined in, but we’re closer to that than you might think -- ten states (California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington) and the District of Columbia have already signed on, totaling 165 electoral votes of the needed 270.

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

A friend visiting from Seattle mentioned a meme floating around there could give popular vote over electoral college w/o constitutional amendment.

It would take enough states whose electoral vote sum would be greater than 270. They would then have their electors vote the popular vote.

As nutty as it seems, it would work and likely be much easier than a constitutional amendment.

-- Owen

Gary Schiltz-4

Re: Popular vote

I don't see the current system as being broken.

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 2:34 PM Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:

Seems like this is more widespread than I had thought:

Here’s how to do it: states can decide how they award their electoral vote, so if enough require their electors to vote for the winner of the nationwide popular vote (instead of who won in that state,) it would fix the problems of the Electoral College without needing to amend the Constitution.
http://www.commoncause.org/take-action/act/fix-the-broken-electoral-college-national-popular-vote.html

They go on to say it's not as far off as you might think:

This National Popular Vote compact wouldn’t take effect until enough states joined in, but we’re closer to that than you might think -- ten states (California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington) and the District of Columbia have already signed on, totaling 165 electoral votes of the needed 270.

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
A friend visiting from Seattle mentioned a meme floating around there could give popular vote over electoral college w/o constitutional amendment.

It would take enough states whose electoral vote sum would be greater than 270. They would then have their electors vote the popular vote.

As nutty as it seems, it would work and likely be much easier than a constitutional amendment.

-- Owen

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Russ Abbott

Re: Popular vote

They're all blue states. We will need some red states as well.

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 12:02 PM Gary Schiltz <[hidden email]> wrote:

I don't see the current system as being broken.

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 2:34 PM Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
Seems like this is more widespread than I had thought:

Here’s how to do it: states can decide how they award their electoral vote, so if enough require their electors to vote for the winner of the nationwide popular vote (instead of who won in that state,) it would fix the problems of the Electoral College without needing to amend the Constitution.
http://www.commoncause.org/take-action/act/fix-the-broken-electoral-college-national-popular-vote.html

They go on to say it's not as far off as you might think:

This National Popular Vote compact wouldn’t take effect until enough states joined in, but we’re closer to that than you might think -- ten states (California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington) and the District of Columbia have already signed on, totaling 165 electoral votes of the needed 270.

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
A friend visiting from Seattle mentioned a meme floating around there could give popular vote over electoral college w/o constitutional amendment.

It would take enough states whose electoral vote sum would be greater than 270. They would then have their electors vote the popular vote.

As nutty as it seems, it would work and likely be much easier than a constitutional amendment.

-- Owen

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

Gillian Densmore

Re: Popular vote

I suspect what dad (Owen) is refering to is this thing floating aroud moveon.org and asking what the point of popular votes is when the electroral college may (or may not) reflect what you and I voted on.

In other words they are infurated:

-Trump who is arguable not mentally stable enough to be president (fair question)

-Bernie got shafted by the electoral colledge system. Though him helping his own cause or not is a reasable question

-a handfull of ballot measure to legally research pot have been shot down by the electoral college system as well going back to California Prop 210 and 217 IIRC that was just ("just" ) to give schools the green light to research pot: energy use, clothing, and yes even possible recreactional or medical issues. IIRC they were over ruled by calififnias supreme court 10 months laster on the grounds the electoral college didn't aprove them.

So now their's a movement to revert back to a Socialist Reublic by essentially working around the Electoral College (sort of). On the grounds that each is a different type of vote and should have a sanity check for the other.

So for really big issues like lets just say it: the Nixons, the Bush (jr) and Regans and now Drumpf as presidents where they just are not sane enough to do so (for example) Vote again? What did the popular (state ) vote say? etc.

And does this have to have a consitutional amendment or a will simple act?

Suffice?

Is it even possible to go back to a Rosevelt (1 and 2) style government?

I simply do not know enough about polotics and suspect it's passed time to say no polotics on hollidays!

UFFDA!!

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 1:16 PM, Russ Abbott <[hidden email]> wrote:

They're all blue states. We will need some red states as well.

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 12:02 PM Gary Schiltz <[hidden email]> wrote:
I don't see the current system as being broken.

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 2:34 PM Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
Seems like this is more widespread than I had thought:

Here’s how to do it: states can decide how they award their electoral vote, so if enough require their electors to vote for the winner of the nationwide popular vote (instead of who won in that state,) it would fix the problems of the Electoral College without needing to amend the Constitution.
http://www.commoncause.org/take-action/act/fix-the-broken-electoral-college-national-popular-vote.html

They go on to say it's not as far off as you might think:

This National Popular Vote compact wouldn’t take effect until enough states joined in, but we’re closer to that than you might think -- ten states (California, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington) and the District of Columbia have already signed on, totaling 165 electoral votes of the needed 270.

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 12:15 PM, Owen Densmore <[hidden email]> wrote:
A friend visiting from Seattle mentioned a meme floating around there could give popular vote over electoral college w/o constitutional amendment.

It would take enough states whose electoral vote sum would be greater than 270. They would then have their electors vote the popular vote.

As nutty as it seems, it would work and likely be much easier than a constitutional amendment.

-- Owen

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

gepr

Re: Popular vote

In reply to this post by Russ Abbott

If the rhetoric that the electoral college provides extra salience for _swing_ states (not nec. small states, not nec. rural states, etc.), then we can count out places like FL and OH ... or any state where a majority of politicos think they have the advantage by swinging. Perhaps now that includes WI, NC, CO, AZ, etc. I think there's a reasonable argument that could be made to solid red states, including TX (which may start swinging soon) to sign up. We stable states should band together and stop being held hostage by the pathological swingers.

On 12/31/2016 12:16 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> They're all blue states. We will need some red states as well.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove

uǝʃƃ ⊥ glen

Owen Densmore

Re: Popular vote

Administrator

Looks like NM, once again, is considering joining the National Popular Vote compact:

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/blogs/politics/roundhouse-roundup-could-popular-vote-control-the-election/article_f7c763d6-c3b5-5f90-a786-b366135e1c0b.html

It likely will not pass, the Governor would probably veto it, but if rural NM is considering it, maybe it has a chance.

-- Owen

On Sat, Dec 31, 2016 at 3:47 PM, glen ☣ <[hidden email]> wrote:

If the rhetoric that the electoral college provides extra salience for _swing_ states (not nec. small states, not nec. rural states, etc.), then we can count out places like FL and OH ... or any state where a majority of politicos think they have the advantage by swinging. Perhaps now that includes WI, NC, CO, AZ, etc. I think there's a reasonable argument that could be made to solid red states, including TX (which may start swinging soon) to sign up. We stable states should band together and stop being held hostage by the pathological swingers.

On 12/31/2016 12:16 PM, Russ Abbott wrote:
> They're all blue states. We will need some red states as well.

--
☣ glen

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ by Dr. Strangelove