Winner take all???? What say you?
A group is suing four U.S. states, claiming that the winner-take-all system for Electoral College selection disenfranchises voters and encourages presidential hopefuls to skip a large part of the country while campaigning.
What are the details?
Former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld, Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig and one-time Al Gore attorney David Boies have teamed up to form the group Equal Votes and to sue the states of California, Texas, Massachusetts and South Carolina.
The plaintiffs contend that the winner-take-all system for divvying up electoral votes cheats voters and violates the ?one person, one vote? principle that the Supreme Court has enshrined under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Currently, 48 states use the winner-take-all method to distribute electoral votes.
In Nebraska and Maine, conversely, electors are selected based on the winners in each congressional district.
The lawsuits seek to require states to replace the winner-take-all system with a process in which electoral votes are distributed according to a candidates? percentage of votes.
Boies argued to Judge Patti B. Saris in Boston on Thursday, ?You shouldn?t have voters going to the polls knowing their votes don?t count. That?s why political candidates don?t come here to campaign the way they go to Ohio or Florida or other so-called battleground states.?
Professor Lessig is the litigation strategist for the group. The Equal Votes organization launched a crowdfunding campaign in September and raised $250,000 to fund the four lawsuits. Equal Votes? website says the suits were filed ?on behalf of a diverse group of Democrats and Republicans whose votes for president don?t matter in the general election under the winner-take-all system.?
Weld ? who was also the 2016 vice presidential nominee for the Libertarian party ? issued a statement that the winner-take-all system ?discards millions of votes for president every four years,? and ?is at the heart of the unhealthy duopoly that plagues our national politics.?
Anything else?
According to The Boston Globe, Saris told the plaintiffs they have a ?steep hill? to climb, saying she would be hesitant to order the Massachusetts Legislature to change the Electoral College system in the state unless there was a ?plain violation? of voters? rights.
The plaintiffs expect an appeal no matter what the outcome, and hope the Supreme Court will hear their case prior to the 2020 election.
What are the details?
Former Massachusetts governor Bill Weld, Harvard Law professor Lawrence Lessig and one-time Al Gore attorney David Boies have teamed up to form the group Equal Votes and to sue the states of California, Texas, Massachusetts and South Carolina.
The plaintiffs contend that the winner-take-all system for divvying up electoral votes cheats voters and violates the ?one person, one vote? principle that the Supreme Court has enshrined under the Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution. Currently, 48 states use the winner-take-all method to distribute electoral votes.
In Nebraska and Maine, conversely, electors are selected based on the winners in each congressional district.
The lawsuits seek to require states to replace the winner-take-all system with a process in which electoral votes are distributed according to a candidates? percentage of votes.
Boies argued to Judge Patti B. Saris in Boston on Thursday, ?You shouldn?t have voters going to the polls knowing their votes don?t count. That?s why political candidates don?t come here to campaign the way they go to Ohio or Florida or other so-called battleground states.?
Professor Lessig is the litigation strategist for the group. The Equal Votes organization launched a crowdfunding campaign in September and raised $250,000 to fund the four lawsuits. Equal Votes? website says the suits were filed ?on behalf of a diverse group of Democrats and Republicans whose votes for president don?t matter in the general election under the winner-take-all system.?
Weld ? who was also the 2016 vice presidential nominee for the Libertarian party ? issued a statement that the winner-take-all system ?discards millions of votes for president every four years,? and ?is at the heart of the unhealthy duopoly that plagues our national politics.?
Anything else?
According to The Boston Globe, Saris told the plaintiffs they have a ?steep hill? to climb, saying she would be hesitant to order the Massachusetts Legislature to change the Electoral College system in the state unless there was a ?plain violation? of voters? rights.
The plaintiffs expect an appeal no matter what the outcome, and hope the Supreme Court will hear their case prior to the 2020 election.
0
-
The Leftist Bastiges are perpetually butt hurt that Hellary Klinton lost. There is a special place in Hades for their ilk.
You want disenfranchisement? Be a Conservative voter in Ill-Noise......0 -
It seems on the surface winner take all in large voter states is BAD. Almost 1/2 of California is voiceless forever. On the other hand places like Alaska, N. Dakota, S. Dakota and Montana it seem absurd to split the votes......
Maybe the solution is somewhere in the middle. If you look at the Red/Blue map of the USA by County in 2016 you see huge areas of land are powerless against mega Cities of (D) voters.0 -
F em. Its the system. 0 -
This is something I have been advocating for, for years. 0 -
It's whatever the state decides. The Constitution is very plain it is the decision of the state, not the central government.
Art 2, Sec 1:
[2] 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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.0 -
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
It's whatever the state decides. The Constitution is very plain it is the decision of the state, not the central government.
Art 2, Sec 1:
[2] 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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
So, the State of California is going to go to the (D) party, along with the ENTIRE West Coast at every election because of winner take all. Are you okay with that? Illinois (R) voters might as well stay home to. Chicago and the (D) suburbs veto the remainder of this state!
Check this out......
http://metrocosm.com/election-2016-map-3d/0 -
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
It's whatever the state decides. The Constitution is very plain it is the decision of the state, not the central government.
Art 2, Sec 1:
[2] 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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
So, the State of California is going to go to the (D) party, along with the ENTIRE West Coast at every election because of winner take all. Are you okay with that? Illinois (R) voters might as well stay home to. Chicago and the (D) suburbs veto the remainder of this state!
Check this out......
http://metrocosm.com/election-2016-map-3d/
I am ok with each state deciding.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
It's whatever the state decides. The Constitution is very plain it is the decision of the state, not the central government.
Art 2, Sec 1:
[2] 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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
So, the State of California is going to go to the (D) party, along with the ENTIRE West Coast at every election because of winner take all. Are you okay with that? Illinois (R) voters might as well stay home to. Chicago and the (D) suburbs veto the remainder of this state!
Check this out......
http://metrocosm.com/election-2016-map-3d/
I am ok with each state deciding.
10-4. Maybe the divide between red and blue will force more red leaning folks to abandon the bastions of insanity controlled by the (D) party in these states. There is zero chance of the red's gaining anything close to legislative power in places like California and Illinois.0 -
Give each state & DC 5 Electoral votes each regardless of population.
135 wins. Why not?0 -
Article 2, Section 1 and the 12th Amendment both strongly suggest proportional representation. While it is left to the states to select the electors, both also state that the votes of the electors are not limited to any specific candidate.
What we have today follows the letter of the law, but it is instructive to note that it is (in every state in which I have lived, anyway) the two parties that select the electors. Again, the individual states have picked this arrangement so it is, IMO, legal. It is not (again, my opinion) what was intended, however, and is worth a legal challenge.
The disenfranchisement argument does not seem to have a Constitutional basis, but the argument for proportional representation to the Electoral College has Constitutional merit.
The two major parties have significantly distorted our system, and not for the better.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Article 2, Section 1 and the 12th Amendment both strongly suggest proportional representation. While it is left to the states to select the electors, both also state that the votes of the electors are not limited to any specific candidate.
What we have today follows the letter of the law, but it is instructive to note that it is (in every state in which I have lived, anyway) the two parties that select the electors. Again, the individual states have picked this arrangement so it is, IMO, legal. It is not (again, my opinion) what was intended, however, and is worth a legal challenge.
The disenfranchisement argument does not seem to have a Constitutional basis, but the argument for proportional representation to the Electoral College has Constitutional merit.
The two major parties have significantly distorted our system, and not for the better.
I disagree. It is very obviously what was intended being left up to the individual states the manner in which the electors are chosen. One need only look at the other elected federal offices to note a total lack of ambiguity in requirements.
A strict reading of the Constitution will bear this out against any challenge to states rights.0 -
In the last election Clinton would have lost electoral votes in New York, California, Oregon, Washington and a few other states. Trump would have lost some in Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin and some others. I'm sure someone could do the math if the electoral votes were counted in relation to congressional districts. 0 -
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
quote:Originally posted by Don McManus
Article 2, Section 1 and the 12th Amendment both strongly suggest proportional representation. While it is left to the states to select the electors, both also state that the votes of the electors are not limited to any specific candidate.
What we have today follows the letter of the law, but it is instructive to note that it is (in every state in which I have lived, anyway) the two parties that select the electors. Again, the individual states have picked this arrangement so it is, IMO, legal. It is not (again, my opinion) what was intended, however, and is worth a legal challenge.
The disenfranchisement argument does not seem to have a Constitutional basis, but the argument for proportional representation to the Electoral College has Constitutional merit.
The two major parties have significantly distorted our system, and not for the better.
I disagree. It is very obviously what was intended being left up to the individual states the manner in which the electors are chosen. One need only look at the other elected federal offices to note a total lack of ambiguity in requirements.
A strict reading of the Constitution will bear this out against any challenge to states rights.
The method of the selection of Electors is specifically left up the the individual States. It is important, however, to read and understand the voting of Electors as clearly stated in Article 2 and as clarified / modified in the 12th Amendment.
The beginning of the 12th Amendment:
The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and 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;-The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed;
This obviously suggests proportional representation, as compared to the party driven arrangement we use today. As stated, I believe the current system to follow the letter of the Constitution, and do not see where the Federal Government has the power to change it.
It does not change the fact that this is not what was intended, as I do not believe that the founders expected the states to surrender the power of representation to two major political parties.0 -
quote:Originally posted by fideau
Give each state & DC 5 Electoral votes each regardless of population.
135 wins. Why not?
There is already a significant disparity between electoral votes and those which are represented by those votes. I see no need to make the disparity even larger.0 -
quote:Originally posted by bpost
quote:Originally posted by p3skyking
It's whatever the state decides. The Constitution is very plain it is the decision of the state, not the central government.
Art 2, Sec 1:
[2] 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: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
So, the State of California is going to go to the (D) party, along with the ENTIRE West Coast at every election because of winner take all. Are you okay with that? Illinois (R) voters might as well stay home to. Chicago and the (D) suburbs veto the remainder of this state!
Check this out......
http://metrocosm.com/election-2016-map-3d/
Isn't it ironic that the most corrupt areas of the country are a democrat majority.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
15 comments