ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   D.C. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   Elections Amendment introduced, 29 extra electoral votes to popular vote winner. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=265730)

Direckshun 10-26-2012 08:19 AM

Amendment introduced, 29 extra electoral votes to popular vote winner.
 
Obviously, never going to pass.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...lectoral-votes

Dem's amendment would give 29 more electoral votes to popular vote winner
By Jonathan Easley
10/26/12 08:39 AM ET

The head of the House Democratic campaign arm this week proposed a Constitutional amendment that would give the winner of the popular vote in the presidential race an additional 29 electoral votes.

Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.) did not offer an explanation in the joint resolution filed in the House why he was proposing to change the way elections in the U.S. are decided.

Under the Constitution, the candidate who wins at least 270 electoral votes wins the presidency regardless of the popular vote.

The prospect of a split between the popular vote and the Electoral College usually provokes cries of abolishing the Electoral College completely, but rather than simplifying the process, Israel’s resolution would add an additional level of intrigue to the electoral puzzle.

Swing states would still retain their importance in the Electoral College, but the additional 29 delegates awarded to the popular vote winner would fundamentally alter the focus of the campaigns. Candidates would have to target voters in states they have no chance of winning, as well as in states they have no chance of losing.

One of the primary criticisms of the Electoral College is that it puts outsized importance on the horserace aspect of the election in the battleground states, as voters in the majority of the country tune out. If Israel’s amendment were to become law, voters in deeply blue and red states would still have participate in the election to secure for their candidate the popular vote prize.

Most analysts believe the 2012 election will be decides by fewer than 29 Electoral College votes.

The timing of the resolution from Israel, the head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, is curious since there is increasing speculation that for the fifth time in history, the 2012 presidential election could result in a split between the popular vote and Electoral College decision. And in this case, most of the speculation has been that President Obama might win the Electoral College while losing the popular vote.

According to the Real Clear Politics average of polls, Mitt Romney has 47.9 percent support nationally over President Obama at 47. But the Obama campaign has consistently touted its “wider path to victory” through the Electoral College, and the president appears to have a small lead in the handful of battleground states whose Electoral College votes will determine the outcome of the election.

Several U.S. races have ended with the lower of the popular vote winning the Electoral College.

A split most recently happened in 2000 when Republican George W. Bush won the most electoral votes but lost the popular vote to Vice President Al Gore.

If approved, Israel’s measure would apply with respect to any presidential election held after a one-year period that would begin on the date of its ratification.

The amendment must be ratified by three-fourths of the states to become law.

Here’s the text of the measure:

“In an election for President and Vice President, after the popular vote has been counted and electors have been appointed in each of the several States and the District constituting the seat of Government of the United States, each State and the District shall report the total number of popular votes cast for each of the candidates,” Israel’s joint resolution reads. “The candidate receiving the largest percentage of the total popular vote as reported by the several States and the District shall receive 29 electoral votes in addition to those cast by the Electors chosen by the several States and the District. These votes shall not be considered votes cast by Electors and shall not affect the total number of votes necessary to constitute a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed.”

loochy 10-26-2012 08:23 AM

won't happen

ROYC75 10-26-2012 08:23 AM

I like this !

FD 10-26-2012 08:24 AM

Why 29?

Comrade Crapski 10-26-2012 08:27 AM

Looks like the communists (democrats) are already starting their sore loser act.

King_Chief_Fan 10-26-2012 08:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tom.Jay61 (Post 9051172)
Looks like the communists (democrats) are already starting their sore loser act.

snicker snicker

ROYC75 10-26-2012 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FD (Post 9051167)
Why 29?

That's why I said 50, 1 for each state.

InChiefsHell 10-26-2012 08:37 AM

Imagine if a candidate wins by like 25 electoral votes...but the other guy gets the 29 because he\she won the popular vote by like 10,000 votes or something...

I dunno. It's scary messing around with the system, as screwy as it is.

And yeah, what's with the magic number 29?

Saul Good 10-26-2012 09:06 AM

I don't hate the idea.

tmax63 10-26-2012 09:07 AM

Ever the conservative I would consider 1 electoral vote for the popular vote to prevent the 269-269 tie that is possible today but not 29.

jiveturkey 10-26-2012 09:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmax63 (Post 9051235)
Ever the conservative I would consider 1 electoral vote for the popular vote to prevent the 269-269 tie that is possible today but not 29.

This makes more sense IMO.

mikey23545 10-26-2012 09:26 AM

Meh.

A Salt Weapon 10-26-2012 09:31 AM

I would rather see each state control 1 electoral vote and 1 for popular. Accomplishes the same thing.

People seem to forget that we are a republic and not a democracy. Population should be irrelevant.
Posted via Mobile Device

patteeu 10-26-2012 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tmax63 (Post 9051235)
Ever the conservative I would consider 1 electoral vote for the popular vote to prevent the 269-269 tie that is possible today but not 29.

This seems like a better idea to me, but I'm not sure we have a problem that needs to be solved in the first place.

HonestChieffan 10-26-2012 09:45 AM

Stupid knows no bounds


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:29 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.