Electoral College system for election of Governor?

[Jiminvirginia]

Thinking about writing my state reps to propose legislation making the election of the governor by an electoral college system. For example each voting district gets one vote. Thoughts?

[Vern Humphrey]

Read the Federalist Papers, Number 69.

[Jiminvirginia]

Vern, read a summary of 69.

My point of this, and Virginia is a good example, is that in most states the election of the governor is determined by a few high population density areas.

[barretcreek]

We have a ballot initiative process here, which has attracted out of state money to push through some crap, from restrictions on bear hunting to our marijuana legalization. State run healthcare was the one which finally got everyone up in arms. At the same time it was on the ballot another initiative similar to your idea was on the ballot. It passed by close to 60% while the healthcare went down in flames at 70% nyet. Now ballot initiatives need to pass in a majority of either counties or Senate districts, not sure which. But it has the population center pols and do gooders furious. A court challenge was filed within days and got defeated.

[Vern Humphrey]

Vern, read a summary of 69.

My point of this, and Virginia is a good example, is that in most states the election of the governor is determined by a few high population density areas.

The problem is -- the big cities won't accept a dimunition of their power. The Constitution was written and ratified in an era when the leading men of the country were willing to sacrifice their own interests for those of the country. This is no longer the case.

[Jiminvirginia]

Good point Vern and frankly it may be struggle keeping the system for the election of the President. Most libs want to get rid of the EC, for the exact reason you bring up.

[Vern Humphrey]

Good point Vern and frankly it may be struggle keeping the system for the election of the President. Most libs want to get rid of the EC, for the exact reason you bring up.

The problem the Libs will have is that it will take a Constitutional Amendment -- and that has to be ratified by 3/4s of the states. Can you see the smaller states voluntarily giving power to the larger states?

[togor]

The premise is that votes in some zip codes should count more than those in others. Hard to see the justification for that in either plain language or statutory language. A Conservative point of view would be to not rely on arcane rules to protect political power, but instead compete for votes in an open and reasonably honest way. There's too much effort already expended on suppression of opposing political views. It's why profitable US plants get shipped overseas with no repercussions so that someone can get a 0.2% better Return on Capital. Ordinary working people have no shot at getting laws written that penalize that sort of thing. It's been going on for decades and look where we are now. The politics of marginalization are the problem, not the solution.

[Jiminvirginia]

Vern I don't think any constitutional changes are required for a state to change its election process.
Togor, can't tell if you are for or against the electoral college. The latest presidential election is a prime example. Hillary wins the popular vote by 2.9 mil. Without the electoral college that is like saying oh darn Los Angeles, Ca didn't get to elect the President. There are only two states where the electors are allowed to vote opposite the way the people in the state voted.

[togor]

Yes Jim the EC is part of the federal system. I'm not a big fan of eliminating it because without it, all of the action is on the coasts. But within some state lines, there is a long and painful history of some people not counting as much as others, and so we have a 14th Amendment to put a stop to that. Any step back in that direction is a step in the wrong direction. If you create inequalities, people exploit them.

[Jiminvirginia]

Yes Jim the EC is part of the federal system. I'm not a big fan of eliminating it because without it, all of the action is on the coasts. But within some state lines, there is a long and painful history of some people not counting as much as others, and so we have a 14th Amendment to put a stop to that. Any step back in that direction is a step in the wrong direction. If you create inequalities, people exploit them.

Are you tipping the bottle tonight Togor? You're not making sense to me. The 14th talks about citizenship rights. What applies on the Federal level, "all the action is on the coasts", also applies at the state level. So for example in Virginia the governor is essentially elected by the liberals in Northern Virginia, Charlottesville, etc. As it stands now the more rural counties don't really have a voice. Simply not enough voters.

[togor]

Typo, yes, meant 15th.

[Jiminvirginia]

Typo, yes, meant 15th.

Well makes more sense then. I would offer that today that a legal voter has ample opportunity to vote and barring any shenanigans gets only one vote. We should remember that in general the founding fathers were scared of a straight democracy, I.e, the popular vote.

[togor]

Well makes more sense then. I would offer that today that a legal voter has ample opportunity to vote and barring any shenanigans gets only one vote. We should remember that in general the founding fathers were scared of a straight democracy, I.e, the popular vote.

For the federal offices, yes.

[barretcreek]

There is movement in some state houses to ratify a pact to give their EC votes to the winner of the common vote once enough states sign on. 'Rats working behind the scene to undermine the Constitution. I expect out solidly Blue General Ass'ly to sign on to it while they have the power. The only hope we have is to remind them of the state motto:
Whiskey's for drinking, water's for fighting.