My post does NOT in any way suggest that the electoral college is what is fair. What I said is that without it the dissolution of the United States as constructed is inevitable. More than half the states would immediately vote to secede from the union upon removal of the E.C., many others would soon follow rather than to be ruled over by N.Y. and California. Inland California, Washington and Oregon would also want out. Our founding fathers struck an amazing balance and somehow it has led to this country staying together for this long.
So when it comes to electing a president, small states would much rather control the power to determine who gets elected even though they are the minority? So if Biden beats Trump by 15 million votes but loses the Electoral College, you think it's fair because the vast minority of people in rural states controlled the Electoral College because the huge populations in coastal urban centers turned out like crazy but their votes had no power because of the limitations of proper representation in the Electoral College. All men are created equal according to the Declaration of Independence but not all votes are created equal and there is something seriously very Animal Farm wrong with that.
Getting rid of the electoral college means the dissolution of the United States. The states with a smaller rural population will in no way be willing to accept a reduction in their voice and be ruled over by the large coastal populous. If you think our electoral college is bad go take a look at the European Union in which the less populous countries receive as much as 12 times the representation as others. Those countries would not have agreed to the union if not for the added representation.
I guess I don't totally understand the EC. Some people say it gives too much power to small states, but I don't see how that can be. Candidates don't really care about small states like Maine, which has only 4 electoral votes; they care mostly about big states with large numbers of electoral votes, like California, Texas, Pennsylvania, New York, and Florida. If anything, it seems to me like rural, conservative voters are the ones who get slighted, and the states with big, liberal urban populations are favored (but I guess they'd be favored even in one-person-one-vote elections as well).Except what you are thinking is demonstrably untrue. As pointed out above when you go state by state and do an Electoral College votes to population ratio for each state smaller states have a higher ratio which shows their votes carry much more weight. There are also a lot more small rural states than there are large populous states and so, because of this, if most small states vote the same way, and they tend to do so, it creates a situation where a minority of the nation's population controls the government. Of course, that was always the Founding Father's desire anyway, to keep power in the hands of the minority group of rich, white men that we wrote the laws.
The EC was an elitist concept based on the idea that the people in this great democracy cannot be trusted to vote for president so each state would have electors that would meet and vote for president regardless of the popular vote. It is undemocratic and needs to be fixed.
Right, wrong, or otherwise, do you actually think 2/3 of state legislators would ever agree to a dissolution of the EC? You're asking a whole lot of people to essentially give up their way of life in favor of urban desires. I can't see that ever happening.
You'd probably have better luck just moving in a mass exodus to a rural or southern state.
I concur that a constitutional amendment to fix this is unlikely.
However, states are slowly working towards a partial solution in the form of the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Once adopted by a few more states, bringing the total number of electoral votes under it's influence above the 270 vote threshold (it is currently at 196), then it will go into effect, which will effectively remove most of the influence of the Electoral College.
It still won't solve the problem of disenfranchisement of citizens outside the 50 states, but at least it will force the popular vote to mean something.
So, if I'm understanding this accord correctly, the participating states are essentially agreeing to potentially award their electoral votes to a candidate that actually lost their state election. Is that correct?
I'm not sure that is likely to come to fruition either. I don't see enough states agreeing to that, at least not enough to garner the 270 votes required. Of the states currently with legislation pending, only MN & WI seem guaranteed. OH, PA and NH are probably a 50/50 proposition. The rest are all red states that are exceedingly unlikely to pass such legislation. There's also the fact NV already had their governor, a Democrat no less, veto such legislation, and CO actually looks to be moving towards potentially changing course and backing out. Even if all of MN, WI, OH, PA and NH agree that is only 258 votes. The only other two states I could see agreeing would be MI or ME, and ME is only 4 votes, it would have to be MI. Essentially you are going to need all of PA, OH, MI, WI, and MN to sign on and hope CO doesn't back out. It's definitely possible, but it could just as easily never happen, and probably not in time for the 2020 election.
And it still would have to pass the SCOTUS, as you can rest assured there will be lawsuits. It seems Congress has to approve of such compacts between states, and such compacts must not provide power to states that usurps federal powers. I think it probably passes muster, but it will definitely be a long, drawn-out battle if it ever comes to that.