Why are there no Dems pushing to get rid of the electorial college?

[LakeArenal]

If I am missing some bill or stance on the Dems part, I would be happy for DU to bring me up to the latest.

I hear everyday how voters are to blame for our past loss. But in light of the majority of voters voting for us, why do comments still push this idea.

Please do not ridicule my lack of knowledge.. Thanks.

[The Wielding Truth]

1. I just want my vote to be able to be recounted.

[shraby]

2. Most likely because they are in the minority and the majority brings bills to the floor.

[jberryhill]

3. It would require a Constitutional amendment...

...and not a "bill" or even a "stance".

A Constitutional amendment requires a 2/3 majority in both the House and Senate, and then would have be ratified by 3/4 of the states (38).

Democrats control the governorship and legislature in six states.

[MineralMan]

4. It's the Electoral College, not the 'electorial college.'

and getting rid of it would require a Constitutional Amendment. No such amendment could succeed at this time, so there is no point in pushing for it. Instead, we need to replace the congressional Republican majorities with Democratic majorities, and then replace the Republican President with a Democrat.

Then, and only then, can we begin to look for ways to prevent a recurrence of 2016. Don't waste your time on impossibilities. Instead, work as hard as you can to regain control of government.

[LakeArenal]

10. Thanks Mineral Man..

You were the one I hoped would answer me.

[MineralMan]

11. My pleasure. I try to clarify, whenever I can.

[Heartstrings]

15. Clarified it for me, as well.....thanks!

#resist

[Act_of_Reparation]

5. Political capital.

Look it up.

[hrmjustin]

6. Because you need Republican votes to do it and they won't.

[LesterKasai]

7. Because getting rid of the Electoral College is a non-starter...

To get rid of it, 2/3 of the States need to agree...and 2/3 of Congress.

Now why would any small population state like Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, North Dakota etc agree to such a change? The Electoral College helps them retain their GOP relevancy. They are not going to agree to get rid of it. Most of those states are RED and they want to keep it that way.

[Hoyt]

12. Exactly. But good luck convincing folks of that. We need to concentrate on GOTV

so the EC is just a formality before inaugurating the Democratic Prez.

[UTUSN]

8. Excellent post & no ridicule is merited. I distinctly remember all the Dems after Coup 2000 standing

on the platform and declaiming and shaking fists of determination that they/we all would be working to reform the system, and *ZILCH* has happened. And here we are again.

That said, I thought Eric HOLDER was working on something.

[MichMary]

9. Do you know what it would take to get rid of the EC?

It's in the Constitution, so it would take a Constitutional amendment. It would take a supermajority (66) of the Senate, and then would need to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures.

The Senate is controlled by the Republicans, and it is HIGHLY unlikely that either party will ever hold 66 seats ever again. In addition, the Republicans control a vast majority of the nation's legislative seats.

This article has a map of the legislatures held by party: https://ballotpedia.org/Gubernatorial_and_legislative_party_control_of_state_government


The D's can bring up anything they want, but I can tell you for a fact that eliminating the Electoral College won't happen for probably at lest a generation.

Hers is the Constitutional Amendment process:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment#Federal_constitution

[Gothmog]

13. Actions are being pursued at the state level

The only way to effectively get rid of the Electoral college is by the concept of state compact to support the winner of the national popular vote

[Tiggeroshii]

23. If we win back enough state govs in 2018 it will prolly happen

[Gothmog]

37. I am hoping that you are right

[Tiggeroshii]

39. Me too

Imagine how much politics will change if republicans are suddenly not dependent on rural white votes to win, and actually have to appeal to urban voters whose needs outweigh the few... would be nice.

[vkkv]

34. You got it Gothmog - the process is moving along::

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 respective electoral votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the overall popular vote in the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The compact is designed to ensure that the candidate who wins the most popular votes is elected president, and it will come into effect only when it will guarantee that outcome.[2][3] As of June 2017, it has been adopted by ten states and the District of Columbia. Together, they have 165 electoral votes, which is 30.7% of the total Electoral College and 61.1% of the votes needed to give the compact legal force.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/written-explanation

AND:::

Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote

The National Popular Vote interstate compact would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

The National Popular Vote bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions possessing 165 electoral votes—61% of the 270 electoral votes necessary to activate it, including four small jurisdictions (RI, VT, HI, DC), three medium- size states (MD, MA, WA), and four big states (NJ, IL, NY, CA). The bill has passed a total of 33 legislative chambers in 22 states—most recently by a bipartisan 40–16 vote in the Arizona House, a 28–18 vote in the Oklahoma Senate, a 57–4 vote in New York Senate, and a 37–21 vote in Oregon House. A total of 3,055 state legislators have either sponsored or cast a recorded vote for the bill.

The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from state winner-take-all statutes (i.e., state laws that award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each separate state).

Because of these state winner-take-all statutes, presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion. As shown on the map, two-thirds of the 2012 general-election campaign events (176 of 253) were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). Thirty-eight states were ignored.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact

[Gothmog]

36. I strongly support the National Popular Vote movement and plan

Thanks for posting the information. I enjoyed reading your material.

[Tiggeroshii]

40. +1,000

Thanks for posting!

[LakeArenal]

14. I appreciate all the comments. And learned a lot.

But why isn't it part of the message. We need to work for it and continually bring it up.

Everything is impossible until we get it done. Why do we continually blame voters?

Is it part of any platform: to work for the elimination of the "Electoral" (thanks, mm) College.

Why aren't we shouting it from the rooftops, instead of blaming voters?

We would never have had all the impossible accomplishments we've had if we deem it impossible.

Thanks for everyone commenting.. Du is the best place to learn politics.

[MichMary]

18. This is just a guess, but

for a FEW states (California, New York, etc.) this would be an overwhelmingly great idea, and readily accepted. But, much of the rest of the country is pretty evenly divided. If this were part of the party platform in solidly red states, or even in states like Wisconsin or Michigan (which actually had a voice in deciding this election) I think it would bring out the R voters like NOTHING else ever would. You would be taking power from states that don't want to give it up.

[LakeArenal]

20. I am in one of those states....

I find our Democrats weak and ineffective. I would welcome a new "fire and brimstone" candidate.

[Wounded Bear]

16. In literary terms, it's called tilting at windmills...

It's a constitutional issue, and cannot be fixed without an amendment, and the states who benefit from it won't concede.

[DanTex]

17. Because it requires a constitutional amendment, which won't happen.

[LakeArenal]

19. Understand that it's a huge pie in the sky...

But Repugs are always calling for Amendments that are probably never going to happen. But it's part of their larger conversations. The base love it. We don't have repeal of the Electoral College on ANYONE'S lips.

I get that I have started beating a dead horse and will not ask "why not" anymore...

Thanks everyone.

[Tiggeroshii]

21. Actually we are just 5 states passing laws from doing that

We already have 170/270 needed to make it happen.

[MichMary]

24. Huh? How do you figure that? n/t

[Tiggeroshii]

25. States worth 170 ecs have passed laws committing their ecs to the popular vote winner

If states worth 100 ecs (5 of the right states, really), pass the same law, then the electoral college will effectively be gone.

[MichMary]

26. Okay, I see, but--

--which states have passed it? Solidly blue states? Are there enough other states with EC votes totaling 100 likely to pass it?

[Tiggeroshii]

27. not sure exactly which ones

California and most of New England. The most likely way for it to happen is if we have enough of a wave in 2018 to give us state control in enough states to make it happen. But believe me, the Democratic Party has been a strong force in helping this through

On edit: but mostly non-partisan groups like the one I shared with you.

[Tiggeroshii]

30. Check this site out for an update on their progress

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status

[Progressive dog]

29. It requires an amendment to the Constitution

which stands no chance at the present time to even get through Congress. You can find the Constitution online through google. It's even in wikipedia.

[Tiggeroshii]

31. Not quite

It really just needs states with 270 ecs to commit to giving those votes to the popular vote winner. http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/state-status

[Progressive dog]

33. States can change their own laws at any point.

So it requires trust in many Republican controlled states to stick to the agreement, if it ever reaches 270 ec votes.

[Tiggeroshii]

38. True enough

Although many of those states have put it in their constitution. Not all though... and I think it would be harder convincing people why the popular vote shouldn't decide our elections, once it actually starts happening. Especially if 2018 makes this happen, then it will likely be some time before enough states change it back.

You are right though. A constitutional amendment will guarantee we keep it, but isn't by any means the only way in making it happen.


It's funny too because when Democrats do great in the ec, suddenly republicans hate it. So there have been support from republicans to abolish it as well.

[still_one]

32. Because it requires a Constitutional Amendment, and doesn't have the votes

[bottomofthehill]

35. As amazing as this seems, at this point it would be EASIER to take back the House and Senate

Then introduce legislation that would give PR and DC statehood, split CA into 10 different states with about 4 million in each and change the Electoral College map than to eliminate it. Nearly 25% of the states have less than 3 Members of Congress and I dont believe you would get any of them (St. Bernie's Vermont included) to give up the Electoral College.