Posts
I am not usually in favor of amending the Constitution unlike some of my "conservative" friends who swear fealty to the document but want repeal the amendments they don't like and propose all sorts of changes.
After the 2000 election when Al Gore got 500,00 votes more than Bush I was disappointed that there wasn't a bigger push to scrap the Electoral College. The founders made it hard to change the process of electing a President as they didn't trust the people to elect the leader of our country and put it in the hands of state legislatures. The person with the most votes would be President and the the second place finisher would be Vice President. The election of 1800 revealed a flaw in the system when the ticket of Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr both got the same amount of votes and the House of Representatives had to decide the thing after 20 something ballots. The 12th amendment was passed shortly after that. The constitution was a living document even then.
Now Republicans in the Pennsylvania Senate have to decided to try to game the system proposing to award Electoral Votes by congressional distinct instead of the winner take all standard that is used by 48 other states. Nebraska has the CD requirement and is looking at changing it because the President won one of five of the Electoral votes in 2008.
I actually like the idea of awarding the electoral college vote by congressional districts but every state has to sign up for it to work. It doesn't require a constitutional amendment If Texas. Mississippi, California, Utah, New York, etc agree to it I'm all for it but that is not going to happen.
Be careful what you ask for as it just might backfire.
After the 2000 election when Al Gore got 500,00 votes more than Bush I was disappointed that there wasn't a bigger push to scrap the Electoral College. The founders made it hard to change the process of electing a President as they didn't trust the people to elect the leader of our country and put it in the hands of state legislatures. The person with the most votes would be President and the the second place finisher would be Vice President. The election of 1800 revealed a flaw in the system when the ticket of Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr both got the same amount of votes and the House of Representatives had to decide the thing after 20 something ballots. The 12th amendment was passed shortly after that. The constitution was a living document even then.
Now Republicans in the Pennsylvania Senate have to decided to try to game the system proposing to award Electoral Votes by congressional distinct instead of the winner take all standard that is used by 48 other states. Nebraska has the CD requirement and is looking at changing it because the President won one of five of the Electoral votes in 2008.
I actually like the idea of awarding the electoral college vote by congressional districts but every state has to sign up for it to work. It doesn't require a constitutional amendment If Texas. Mississippi, California, Utah, New York, etc agree to it I'm all for it but that is not going to happen.
Be careful what you ask for as it just might backfire.
Some people in the Pennsylvania Republican party are freaked out by this idea.
House GOP fret over new Pa. electoral plan
House GOP fret over new Pa. electoral plan
Capitol Ideas is all over it.
In this case I'm all for amending the constitution scrapping the Electoral College. The winner of the popular vote should be the President.
In this case I'm all for amending the constitution scrapping the Electoral College. The winner of the popular vote should be the President.
