What if Trump DOES drop out?

[Regnad Kcin]

If the Electoral College dared to violate the clear will of the people, there would be an immediate Constitutional amendment to elect the President by Popular Vote, RETROACTIVE to the most recent election.

Well, no.

 

[bonzombiekitty]

Representatives are elected to represent their districts, and, apart from fund-raising, constituent service is their primary duty. It's what their staffs spend most of their time on. Problems with Social Security? Call your Congressman. Your kid on duty in Afghanistan needs an emergency home leave? Call your Congressman. Etc. And most Congressmen have close personal connections to their districts. You can't just say "We'll elect a bunch of people and send'em all to Washington."

Combine congressional districts together so that each person has, say, three representatives rather than one, and use single transferable vote to elect them.

 

[lpetrich]

Seems to me that the Republican Party in this election is being like the Democratic Party in 1972. Back then, there was a battle between the New Left and organized labor, with the New Left winning and supporting George McGovern. AFL-CIO leader George Meany memorably complained that the party's New York delegation has 6 open homosexuals and only 3 AFL-CIO delegates. His actual word would likely be bleeped out by this messageboard's software.

It also did not help that Vice Presidential candidate Thomas Eagleton had hidden his going through psychiatric treatment. As a result, Eagleton resigned.

Republican candidate Richard Nixon won the election, winning the electoral votes of every state except Massachusetts and the pseudo-state of Washington, DC.

So it looks like Hillary Clinton may have a similar big victory, even if not necessarily so lopsided.

 

[Tony Stark]

((Jeff Tiedrich))) @jefftiedrich
Republicans should be forced to carry their candidates to term. Even when the life of the party is in danger.

 

[Bob001]

If the Electoral College dared to violate the clear will of the people, there would be an immediate Constitutional amendment to elect the President by Popular Vote, RETROACTIVE to the most recent election.

Most of the problems with the electoral college system could be eliminated or dramatically reduced if electoral votes were distributed proportionally between/among the candidates, which is what they do now in Nebraska and Maine. In 2000, to take a random example, Florida's votes would have been split between Gore and Bush, and Gore would have won the election, even if other states also had split their electors. No national crisis, no shady Supreme Court action. It would also give voters in every state some impact, rather than candidates putting all their energy into a few "swing" states. And it could be accomplished by changing state laws; no constitutional amendment required.

 

[Trebuchet]

I'd be all for that, except for the problem of gerrymandering. Something seriously needs to be done about that. It makes a mockery of democracy. Redistricting absolutely cries out for a good computer algorithm.

 

[ChristianProgressive]

Most of the problems with the electoral college system could be eliminated or dramatically reduced if electoral votes were distributed proportionally between/among the candidates, which is what they do now in Nebraska and Maine. In 2000, to take a random example, Florida's votes would have been split between Gore and Bush, and Gore would have won the election, even if other states also had split their electors. No national crisis, no shady Supreme Court action. It would also give voters in every state some impact, rather than candidates putting all their energy into a few "swing" states. And it could be accomplished by changing state laws; no constitutional amendment required.

Why bother with all that complicated gobbledygook? Just use the popular vote total. The EC is outdated anyways. We no longer have to take a month for a group of delegates to travel out from the boonies to some central location just to deliver the vote tallies after all.

I'd be all for that, except for the problem of gerrymandering. Something seriously needs to be done about that. It makes a mockery of democracy. Redistricting absolutely cries out for a good computer algorithm.

Or vote a slate whereby districts are not necessary.

 

[lpetrich]

Maine & Nebraska - FairVote

Those two states don't assign Electoral-College electors proportionally, but by a finer-grained winner-take-all system.

The winner in each Congressional district gets an elector from their party, and the two remaining delegates of each state are assigned for the whole state, also in winner-take-all fashion.

That makes Presidential elections vulnerable to House-district gerrymandering.

-

I think that the best way to avoid the risk of gerrymandering is to have multiseat districts with proportional representation or preference voting in them.

 

[fuelair]

What if Trump DOES drop out of a plane flying at say 10,000 feet without a parachute??? He makes a big splash in the news!!!!! And loses!!

 

[fuelair]

Heh, heh, I am so up for that!!!!!!!!

 

[fuelair]

And based on reports tonight, he may be speaking with FBI and/or secret service real soon now about his little clear suggestion today of a Palin like targeting of his major opponent. in the Carolinas to an audience of morons who agreed with him about a 2nd Amendment solution for Hilary. Would kinda love to see him have a Go To Jail Now and Rot solution.

 

[Puppycow]

I remember Perot did drop out in '92. He got back in again but never had the same support after that.

So there is a precedent for eccentric populist billionaires saying screw it, I quit. Trump is just erratic enough that you never know.

 

[Craig B]

Adding a single star to the flag would be awkward though.

Three rows of nine, three rows of eight.

 

[Babbylonian]

I remember Perot did drop out in '92. He got back in again but never had the same support after that.

So there is a precedent for eccentric populist billionaires saying screw it, I quit. Trump is just erratic enough that you never know.

At least Perot didn't have the nomination of one of the major parties.

Like it or lump it, our political system is bipartisan. That's obviously open to change if a third party can actually do something (as the Libertarian party clearly has not) but in the meantime, members of the two major parties who are nominated (and accept said nomination) to run for political office have a responsibility to not only their party but the US political system as a whole to do the agreed-upon job.

 

[Giordano]

Why bother with all that complicated gobbledygook? Just use the popular vote total. The EC is outdated anyways. We no longer have to take a month for a group of delegates to travel out from the boonies to some central location just to deliver the vote tallies after all.
.

Much of the original purpose of the EC was a compromise to give States with smaller populations a bit more influence in the election of the President. Similar (and numerically linked of course) to why each State has two Senators no matter the size of its population. A Constitutional Amendment has to be ratified by 3/4 of the States. I suspect that not enough of the smaller States would be willing to give up the EC and support a transition to a pure popular vote method. Sure candidates go most strongly after the States with the highest populations (and the most resulting EC delegates), but the EC puts the minimum floor as 3 per State, and it at least provides some visibility/self-respect for States like Wyoming.

One of the more convincing arguments I've heard for the EC system is that it reduces some of the uncertainty that might arise from a pure popular vote count. A popular vote count potentially can generate a very narrow outcome (perhaps 65,002,000 versus 65,000,000) that might result in weeks or months of uncertainty, legal maneuvering, and re-counts; the EC count is likely to produce a much broader gap between the candidates (perhaps 290 versus 248) and a more definitive legal result.

 

[Dr. Keith]

((Jeff Tiedrich))) @jefftiedrich
Republicans should be forced to carry their candidates to term. Even when the life of the party is in danger.

Thanks for sharing that!

 

[Ladewig]

Much of the original purpose of the EC was a compromise to give States with smaller populations a bit more influence in the election of the President. Similar (and numerically linked of course) to why each State has two Senators no matter the size of its population. A Constitutional Amendment has to be ratified by 3/4 of the States. I suspect that not enough of the smaller States would be willing to give up the EC and support a transition to a pure popular vote method. Sure candidates go most strongly after the States with the highest populations (and the most resulting EC delegates), but the EC puts the minimum floor as 3 per State, and it at least provides some visibility/self-respect for States like Wyoming.

That would require all 51 jurisdictions to recount everything.

One of the more convincing arguments I've heard for the EC system is that it reduces some of the uncertainty that might arise from a pure popular vote count. A popular vote count potentially can generate a very narrow outcome (perhaps 65,002,000 versus 65,000,000) that might result in weeks or months of uncertainty, legal maneuvering, and re-counts; the EC count is likely to produce a much broader gap between the candidates (perhaps 290 versus 248) and a more definitive legal result.

If one has to have the EC then having more states adopt the Maine-Nebraska approach would be infinitely more fair. But each state would have to make that decision for itself, and that is not going to happen. So we are stuck with Gerrymandered districts and less than a dozen swing states that decide who will be president. I am embarrassed to be part of such a ridiculous system.

 

[Bob001]

Whether or not Trump drops out, it's not impossible that any candidate in any election might need to withdraw, especially when they're pushing 70, even after ballot deadlines have passed. Are there provisions in state election law to treat all votes for, say, Trump, as votes for "the designated candidate of the Republican party?"

 

[ddt]

2) Elect House Reps by slate and institute proportionate representation. Each party puts up a slate equal to the number of House Seats that state has. Voters vote for the party, not the person. When the count is made, the seats per state are apportioned accordingly (get X percent of the vote, get X percent of the seats, rounded up).

They would have to recalculate the total number of seats, since there are some states that currently have only 1 or 2 seats, making division problematic currently. No more swamping of urban votes by rural low population votes.

I absolutely like the idea of PR. It would make third parties, like the Greens and the Libertarians, more viable and able to win seats. It would also open the door to fragmenting the sometimes awkward coalitions that make up the two big parties into their constituents.

But why closed lists? Let people still vote for a candidate on that list. And if number 10 on the list gets enough votes, while the party list in total only gets enough votes for 8 seats, then number 10 is in and number 8 is out. That's the way we do it over here.

 

[Babbylonian]

Whether or not Trump drops out, it's not impossible that any candidate in any election might need to withdraw, especially when they're pushing 70, even after ballot deadlines have passed. Are there provisions in state election law to treat all votes for, say, Trump, as votes for "the designated candidate of the Republican party?"

No, and I would go to any length to get a case to the Supreme Court (or at least contribute to someone attempting to do so) if that kind of ******** was attempted. It's bad enough that we have the electoral college without changing my vote after the fact.