Below is my column in Fox.com on the move by Democrats to change the Electoral College before the 2028 election. Once a critic of the college, I began to change my own views years ago while writing Rage and the Republic and exploring the growing challenges to our constitutional system. If successful, the move could effectively nullify the Electoral College and give high-population, blue states a dominant position in selecting presidents. The result could lead to the realization of long-awaited changes to our constitutional system that could guarantee effectively one-party rule for years to come.
Here is the column:
After the midterm elections, the Democrats are moving in for the kill.
Liberal politicians and pundits realize that the losses by the Republicans may only represent a fleeting, and indeed predictable, shift in power. While played up by the media, the results this month are consistent with prior administrations. For example, the GOP’s loss of roughly 46 seats is modest compared with other presidents such as Roosevelt (79), Obama (69), Truman (68), and Clinton (54). Thus far, Trump is just making the top ten. Presidents like Obama, who experienced massive losses, came back to win second terms.
The Democrats are not waiting to find out. They are moving to help guarantee they can take the White House and, with control of both houses, implement radical changes to ensure they hold power for years to come. That includes finally negating the Electoral College to increase the power of high-population blue states such as California and New York.
As discussed in my recent book, Rage and the Republic, academics and pundits have been discussing radical changes (including trashing the Constitution) for years. The key is to destroy minority protections by killing the filibuster and create an insurmountable majority by adding new states like the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The most important initial objective is packing the Court with an immediate liberal majority to allow for measures that would likely be struck down.
Years ago, Harvard professor Michael Klarman laid out a radical agenda to change the system to guarantee Republicans “will never win another election.” However, he warned that “the Supreme Court could strike down everything I just described.” Therefore, the court must be packed in advance to make these changes possible. None of this is possible with a Republican in the White House.
The Democrats know that they are unlikely to attain a veto-proof majority. They need to get a president who will help pack the Court, add states, and make fundamental changes to the constitutional system.
That goal may now be attainable.
With a slew of new Democratic governors, Democrats believe they may have enough states to sign on to a compact to effectively nullify the Electoral College.
The Framers saw the College as a way of protecting small states from being overwhelmed by high-population states. It was designed to get presidents to take the interests of small states seriously and to protect political minority populations.
In my book, I raised the increasing importance of the Electoral College and other protections for small states and minority political groups in our system. I was a late convert, and I previously criticized the College for producing elections in which candidates won the majority vote but lost the electoral vote. I still share those reservations with a majority of Americans, who are polling at 58 percent in favor of electing presidents by popular vote.
I still believe that a president elected by less than a majority of the public is deeply problematic. This is not, however, the time for such a change and, if anything, the push for direct democratic reforms only reaffirms the judgment of the Framers that this is an important limitation for the nation.
Clearly, many people who are calling for this reform are not seeking one-party rule. Likewise, many of us who are now skeptical about the change raised those concerns before recent elections. We should be able to have this debate without personal or political animus.
The direct democratic reforms being pushed by professors and pundits risk dangerously destabilizing our constitutional system. Many on the left want to unleash more direct democratic power, including calls by groups like the Democratic Socialist of America (DSA) to eliminate the Senate, the Supreme Court, and the presidency. The nullification of the College is part of the direct democracy movement.
Witnessing this movement (and the support of establishment figures), I changed my mind about dumping the College as part of a package of reforms that could fundamentally change our Republic.
With one-party control in states like Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, the party is ready to get states to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. Under the Compact, states agree to give all their electoral votes to the presidential ticket that wins the national popular vote.
The constitutionality of the Compact has obviously not been tested. There are compelling arguments that such a constructive amendment of the Constitution is unlawful. The Supreme Court has described the constitutional system as creating a “finely wrought” system of procedures designed to preserve a balancing of powers and avoid both the concentration of power and majoritarian abuse. The compact is designed to avoid the Article V amendment process precisely because the advocates know that they would have a difficult time securing such a change to our Constitution.
Ten years ago, I would have applauded this effort. Now I am deeply concerned.
We are in the midst of a national fever as politicians fuel the rage of citizens, including newly elected members who proudly say that they will happily go to jail if they have the opportunity to assault certain Republicans physically. Yet, the greatest danger is found in those establishment figures encouraging Americans to abandon constitutional values and institutions as “nostalgia” and condemning those who seek only “incremental” changes.
In Rage and the Republic, I explore these changes in both a historical and contemporary context. It is a book about revolutions and how they can consume those who start them. It is a history that resonates more deeply as new far-left members of Congress promise “revolutionary” change, including those supporting the DSA agenda.
Many current proposals from liberal politicians and pundits are strikingly similar to those of the “Jacobin” movement in the French Revolution. Both the American and French revolutions arose during the same period, but one became the world’s oldest and most successful Republic while the other became a blood-soaked tyranny known as “The Reign of Terror.”
The Jacobins (who were composed of radical journalists, writers, and lawyers) pushed for the same unicameral system and direct democratic measures that many are now advocating. Even figures such as Thomas Paine (one of two figures who played a significant role in both revolutions) supported such measures to allow for more direct democracy. He later came to regret some of those views as the French Revolution became the blood bath known as “the Terror.”
The New Jacobins are seeking to pursue the same disastrous reforms.
The Framers rejected this approach and warned future generations against adopting such direct democratic measures. Benjamin Rush, a signatory to the Declaration of Independence, referred to it as democracies becoming “mobocracies.”
We are now toying with the very elements that could produce the mobocracy that the Framers sought to avoid. There are good-faith reasons for converting the presidential election to a majority election. However, with the assault on our constitutional values and traditions, citizens cannot afford to ignore a broader agenda unfolding in the wake of the midterm elections.
Jonathan Turley is the best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
Under Article I Sect.10 of the Constitution No state without the agreement of Congresscan enter into any agreement or compact with another state. Thus under the Constitution, the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. is clearly unconsstitutional. But under that provision, Congress can authorize an intersstate compace to effectively do that as I propose in the following https://nationalrenewalpartysite.org/?page_id=13
The courts have told us that ISL is not constitutional – because when the Constitution say State Legislature – they mean the normal process of making law – that includes the govenor.
That strongly suggest when the constitution says Congress can act – that requires the president to sign on.
The compact clause does not apply. Virginia v Tennessee says any compact that doesn’t affect Congress’s powers is none of its business and doesn’t need its approval.
Your proposed scheme at your site is completely unconstitutional, and would require an amendment. An interstate compact would not do it unless all 50 states and Congress agreed to it..
John, you don’t need to refer to ISL to make your point. The constitution explicitly says that any measure that requires the vote of both houses of congress must be presented to the president for his veto.
SCOTUS has created one (dubious) exception to that: in 1798, in Hollingsworth v Virginia, it held that proposed constitutional amendments, having been passed by 2/3 of each house, need not be presented to the president. I think that is overridden by its 1969 decision in Powell v McCormack, which depends on the very reasoning that Hollingsworth rejected, but so far the two contradictory cases both stand.
In any case, no other exceptions have ever been created, so if an interstate compact does need congressional permission, the president can veto it.
Turley Writes:
“Increase the power of high-population blue states such as California and New York..
……………………………………
California and New York were America’s two most populous states throughout the second half of the 20th Century.
But here in the 21st, Texas has always been America’s second largest state. And Florida has been our third most populous since 2010. New York is currently number four.
Since the 1950’s, our fastest growing states have been in the south and west. The so-called red states had significant populations until last week. But since Tuesday’s election, the list of red states is now considerably smaller.
No one knows if Texas will ever be red again. Texas, one should note, has more big cities than California. Texas might be coming into its own as an urban state. Republicans may have possibly lost Texas for good.
This week we also saw Democrats sweep North Carolina, one of our 10 biggest states. Republicans may have possibly lost that state for good. Georgia is another.
So this idea that we need the Electoral College to protect the red states is already outdated.
It’s Unconstitutional on it’s face:
Article I, Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution.Vanlifetrader
The relevant language is in the first clause:
It continues later in the same section with a related restriction:
Even with the “Consent of Congress” clause it still can’t get past a Presidential Veto.
Sigh. Once again, see Virginia v Tennessee. Congress’s permission is not required for this compact.
Presidents Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon drafted Americans to fight the COMMUNISTS in Korea and Vietnam.
Who’s going to fight the COMMUNISTS in America?
You first stupid.
And the answer is… http://www.recapturefreedom.org. ENFORCE the Constitution. Stop federal monopolization of government. Do it NOW, or forever regret your cowardice!
Could you please provide citation for this claim: “The Framers saw the College as a way of protecting small states from being overwhelmed by high-population states. It was designed to get presidents to take the interests of small states seriously and to protect political minority populations.”? I ask because I don’t think that’s what the framers were trying to do; it certainly doesn’t appear in Fed 68. That’s what the College has in fact done, but it was not the reason for its design, to my knowledge.
I would appreciate a citation for that assertion because I believe it conflates an effect of the Electoral College with the Framers’ stated reasons for establishing it.
In Federalist No. 68, Hamilton explained the rationale in terms of informed selection, the independence of electors, protection against political intrigue, and safeguarding the presidency from foreign influence. He did not identify protecting small states or minority populations as the purpose of the Electoral College.
I recognize that the final allocation of electors, incorporating each state’s two senatorial electors, gives smaller states additional electoral influence. That was a feature of the compromise ultimately adopted. But demonstrating that effect is not the same as demonstrating that protecting small states and political minorities was the Framers’ original purpose.
If there is a specific Convention record, Federalist paper, or other contemporary source establishing that as their intention, I would genuinely welcome seeing it.
The Electoral College was designed to provide an informed, independent, and deliberative means of selecting the President, balancing popular sovereignty, state participation, and the separation of powers while guarding against political intrigue and foreign influence. Its protection of smaller states was a consequence of the federal compromise, not an adequately established primary purpose.
Well said …! While the Dems have won this election, what they are trying to do is a take-over of our country, to gain power for years to come. They are on Sunday talk shows and you would think that they weren’t even present over the last two years as active participants! While the Republicans now have a wake-up call, the Dems need a push to drop the DSA into the ‘pot of oil’ they are preparing for the country.
“. . . not an adequately established primary purpose.”
That is false.
Both Fed. 10 and 68 state that a purpose of the EC is to protect a minority of citizens from the passions of a majority of voters. And countless places elsewhere, the Founders made it very clear that an important purpose of a limited government is to protect the individual from majority rule. An electoral college is a mechanism for achieving that noble purpose.
“I ask because I don’t think that’s what the framers were trying…”
You’re at the wrong place to get an answer. This place is full of wackos and liars. Put some effort into it. Learn. Read a book instead.
andrweperrin
This is OBVIOUSLY true – not merely by the requirements of the electoral college, but by the fact that every state no matter how big or small has 2 senators.
Overall the entire structure of the constitution is do creat numerous power centers all of which indenependtly have the power to say NO!
The president can say no – and it requires 2/3 majorities int he house and senate to override.
The house and senate are structured differently to again make it possible for either to say no.
I would further state that we should presume that what the electoral college IN FACT DOES – is what it was intended to do.
“. . . it certainly doesn’t appear in Fed 68.”
It most certainly does — especially when you combine that with Fed 10.
“I still believe that a president elected by less than a majority of the public is deeply problematic.”
The President is elected by the states, not by the people. Therefore, there is no such thing as a “national popular vote”, because the selection of Presidential electors is not a national function, it’s a state function.
The people’s representatives are the House.
The President is currently elected when a majority of the populations of a sufficient number of states send electors to the Electoral College to vote for him. The number of electors a state has is in turn determined by the Census. This is sufficiently majoritarian, while at the same time avoids most of the pitfalls of direct democracy.
IMHO the compact is plainly and facially unconstitutional. Article I, Section 10, clause 3 says in pertinent part, “No state shall, without the consent of Congress, …enter into any agreement or compact with another state”. The procedure for Congress to amend the Constitution does not include simply rubber stamping an unconstitutional interstate compact.
Yes, nuking the filibuster would allow Democrats to work around all this by packing the SCOTUS. That is why the Senate needs to shore up the filibuster, such as by changing its rules so that it takes 90 Senators to amend or cancel it, taking it specifically out of reach of the “nuclear option”.
IMHO the compact is plainly and facially unconstitutional. Article I, Section 10, clause 3 says in pertinent part, “No state shall, without the consent of Congress, …enter into any agreement or compact with another state”.
As I’ve pointed out several times, see Virginia v Tennessee. In 1893 the Supreme Court asked, effectively, what should happen if CA wants to rent an office in NY, in a state-owned building; must they submit the lease to Congress for approval?! And it answered, No, they don’t, because such a compact is none of Congress’s business. The only kind of compact the clause applies to is one that enhances’ the states’ power at the expense of Congress. This compact doesn’t do that, so according to 130 years of precedent it doesn’t need Congress’s approval.
That is not an example of an interstate compact.
The lease is an example of an interstate compact. It’s an agreement between two states. But in Virginia v Tennessee SCOTUS said that’s not the sort of compact that the clause means. And it said the reason was that it doesn’t affect Congress, and thus Congress couldn’t possibly have any legitimate objection to it.
This is not an example of an interstate compact.
https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10807
Sorry, need to refresh the page after posting I guess.
Virginia v. Tennessee (1893) did establish that the Compact Clause does not require congressional approval of every agreement between states. The controlling consideration is whether the agreement increases state political power in a manner that may encroach upon or interfere with federal supremacy. Ordinary commercial and administrative arrangements do not automatically trigger the clause. However, the fact that an agreement does not presently conflict with federal interests is not, by itself, sufficient to establish that congressional consent is unnecessary. The constitutional test concerns its potential effect on federal supremacy.
An agreement on how the states choose their electors can’t possibly have any effect on federal supremacy, since the USA plays no role whatsoever in the selection of electors. The constitution gives that matter entirely to the states, so it’s impossible for such an agreement to reduce that federal role below zero.
Virginia v. Tennessee (1893) did establish that the Compact Clause does not require congressional approval of every agreement between states. The controlling consideration is whether the agreement increases state political power in a manner that may encroach upon or interfere with federal supremacy. Ordinary commercial and administrative arrangements do not automatically trigger the clause. However, the fact that an agreement does not presently conflict with federal interests is not, by itself, sufficient to establish that congressional consent is unnecessary. The constitutional test concerns its potential effect on federal supremacy.
“The controlling consideration is whether the agreement increases state political power in a manner that may encroach upon or interfere with federal supremacy.”
Call me crazy, but a compact that allows the states to nullify a basic component of Article II of the federal Constitution seems to satisfy that requirement, at least to me.
Okay. Crazy. And for good measure incredibly stupid of yo to think you’re smarter than 250 years of legal knowledge.
Call me crazy, but a compact that allows the states to nullify a basic component of Article II of the federal Constitution seems to satisfy that requirement, at least to me.
How so? It doesn’t nullify anything. Article II says each state decides for itself how it wants to choose its electors, and Congress gets no say in the matter whatsoever. This compact merely has several states agreeing among themselves on how they will exercise this power. Since Congress has no power at all in the matter, the compact can’t reduce that power below zero. Therefore, under Virginia v Tennessee, it is none of Congress’s business.
Article II, Section 1:
“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress”
No “national” functionality, the election is among the states. The majority is within the states, not nationally.
Senate rules can be changed at will a majority voter of the Senate. The existing Senate cannot bind the one that takes office in January.
So, you’re suggesting for example that the Senate nuking of the filibuster of SCOTUS nominees was not binding after the 115th Congress?
Sounds iffy.
That’s right, the 115th senate’s decisions were not binding on any subsequent senate.
The flaw in your argument is your baseless assumption that the filibuster is somehow an entrenched rule that automatically snaps back into effect at the beginning of each session and must be repealed again and again. The 115th senate’s decisions are not binding on any subsequent senate, but neither are the decisions of the early 19th-century senate that accidentally adopted the filibuster in the first place. (It was an accident, a drafting error, that no one noticed for many years. But having been discovered, senate after senate has declined to repeal it, so it has gained legitimacy.)
There is no fillibuster on judicial nominees – that ended some time ago. As I recall – Harry Reid ended the fillibuster for judicial apointments.
And then McConnel extended that to include supreme court justices.
The Fillibuster also does not apply to budget reconcilliation measures, or I beleive purely fiscal legislation.
Really Reid’s change was for SCOTUS too. They said it wasn’t, but that distinction was always unsustainable. Once it was gone for all other nominations, it was impossible to imagine that it still existed for SCOTUS nominations, and the Democrats later admitted that they had never had any intention of adhering to it had a SCOTUS vacancy come up while they were in the majority.
It is a sign of impending crisis that Americans do not agree on how to decide the winner of a Presidential election. That uncertainty obliges Congress to settle the matter in advance — that is, if they care about the stability of our political system.
Any “Americans” who don’t agree on following the relatively simple process laid out in the Constitution can be safely ignored IMHO. The Constitution is not up for a vote. If there is sufficient desire to amend the Constitution, there is a process for that too. Several in fact.
Sorry for the double post.
IMHO, any “American” who does not agree to the relatively simple process for electing the President can and should be ignored. The Constitution and following it are not matters of opinion, they are written law. If a sufficient number of people agree that the Constitution needs to be amended, there is a procedure for that too. Several, in fact.
Congress doesn’t have the power to settle the matter in advance.
The Electoral Count Act is unconstitutional. Eastman was right about that. He was wrong to conclude that therefore the VP has the power to chose which electors to count. The constitution doesn’t give the VP any role other than to preside over the meeting.
Over the history of the county americans have not agreed over very very many things – that is specifically why we have a constitution.
It settles these issues, and when you do not like how the constitution settles them, then you can amend the constitution.
You’d have thought the Constitution would have to be amended to eliminate the Electoral College.
To actually eliminate it, of course you would need an amendment. This compact doesn’t eliminate it, it just guarantees that whoever gets a majority of the popular vote will also get a majority of electors. That’s perfectly constitutional and doesn’t need an amendment. But I don’t think it would hold, if it ever benefited a Republican.
Milhouse – I do not think it is constitutional, and I do not think that the supreme court will think it is constitutional.
It clearly is constitutional, because the states have plenary power over how they choose their electors. So several states can agree with each other to choose them however they all like, and this doesn’t affect federal power so Congress doesn’t get a say in the matter.
The states with Dem-controlled legislatures and governors could all agree to legislate that they will no longer have presidential elections at all, and delegating the power to choose their electors to the Democratic National Committee. This would be perfectly constitutional, there’s nothing Congress or SCOTUS could do about it. There would be outrage in those states, and at the 2028 state elections those legislatures would be turned out, and the incoming legislatures in 2029 would repeal the measure, but it would be too late for 2028. The DNC-chosen electors would have already voted, and their nominee would be sworn in on January 20.
“This compact doesn’t eliminate it . . .”
De jure, no. De facto, yes.
It’s a typical fascist move by the Left: Gut an important government institution, while keeping the appearance of it.
Attorney Todd Blanche – On Fox News, he said the possibility of criminal charges depended on what Democrats had said.
Criminal charges for what they said? JT, mister 1st amendment (BS) where are you?
If they made actual threats, true threats, then yes, that is a crime and the first amendment doesn’t protect them.
CBT – I have no interested in what YOU claim someone said.
Provide a link to an exact quote or better yet a link to video.
JT does not rant daily about twisted interpretations of offhand comments of those on the left.
Generally a story mkes Turley.org when those on the left ACT or more rarely prepare to act.
When they arrest people for speech or as they are doing in the UK for the thought crime of praying silently.
It isn’t obvious to me that the demonrats would benefit from the elimination the the Electoral College. It is easy for conservative republicans in deep blue states to become disillusioned and unenthusiastic about voting, since they know that there is zero chance of their vote counting.
To me, the perceived problems with the Electoral College pale in comparison to universal mail-in voting problems, where surveys indicate that 20% of voters admit to filling out a ballot for someone else. I suspect this figure underestimates the practice, since even though such surveys are supposed to be anonymous, the 20% responders are essentially admitting that they committed a very serious crime by voting more than once.
I would exchange a constitutional amendment eliminating the electoral college for a constitutional amendment outlawing universal mail-in voting. Of course, the two changes would have to be combined into a single amendment, given the amendment process.
38 US states have secret ballot constitutional provisions – mailin voting is unconstitution in those states – but those provisions are not being enforced by left wing courts.
To a signifcant extent the left has already packed many of the courts in the US.
States passed secret ballot laws in the late 19th and early 20th centuries as a result of massive voting fraud that was taking place.
It because so bad it was just plain embarrassing.
There are 4 resuirements for a secret ballot.
Mailin ballots leave the polling place.
And are not market in secret.
Absentee ballots are marked in secret at a polling place on a day other than election day.
The same is true of military ballots – solders vote at a polling place in secret and their ballots are then transported back to their locality.
Absentee ballots are marked in secret at a polling place on a day other than election day.
No they’re not. They can be, but usually they’re sent by mail, and that’s always been the case.
John Say
Everything you say here is completely false, especially with regard to how overseas military personnel vote.
Most military personnel can request a ballot by mailing in a postcard to their state of residence. The state then mails them a ballot which they return by mail. The entire process is conducted by mail.
All states allow this method of voting. But 32 states also provide alternative mechanisms to vote. Depending on the state, military personnel can request a ballot electronically, via fax, email or through an online portal. The ballot is then sent to them electronically, and returned electronically.
https://www.ncsl.org/elections-and-campaigns/electronic-ballot-return-internet-voting
Your claim about military absentee voting is completely false. Soldiers do NOT have to personally appear at a designated polling place to vote in secret as you so preposterously claim. If that were true, every overseas military polling place would have to have ballots on hand for all 50 states. It would be a logistical nightmare fraught with opportunities for errors and abuse. The poll workers at such polling places would have to have a way to verify a soldiers eligibility for all 50 states. That would be impossible. The only logical way for soldiers to vote is for them to handle the process individually by contacting their state agencies directly and then doing everything by mail or electronically where permitted.
You simply make stuff, or get this information from the voices in your head.
Your opinions here are completely worthless, and the product of a disturbed mind.
Where did you get that figure (20%)? A round number like that sounds made up.
Regarding Below:
ESTOVIR is the purple ‘X’ below with the long, unreadable cut & paste.
It means Estovir is having a hissy fit because comments aren’t going his way today.
it is unreadable to you bc of your low IQ and narcissistic trolling as dictated by your handlers at Media Matters
Unlike you, he (once known as This is Absurd and Tabarock (sp?) on this forum) contributes intellectual commentary albeit largely pessimistic. You do not contribute anything of substance nor of intellectual rigor. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada.
Who cares ?
I disagree with you. The utility of the electoral college is that it saves us from having to impose a national administration to supervise presidential elections. It also contains the effects of vote fraud in the bad states.
==
The District of Columbia’s representation issue could be addressed by retroceding the territory to Maryland. As is, it is a local fragment accounting for about 16% of a metropolitan settlement. Among the local jurisdictions in greater Washington with a larger population are Fairfax County, Va, Montgomery County, Md, and Prince George’s County, Md. It is, compared to any other jurisdiction, geographically tiny (Rhode Island has a land area about 17x as large). The complaint is made that two states have lower population than DC; the thing is, those states are an assemblage of small cities, non-metropolitan towns, and countryside; they are not fragments of a metropolitan settlement. Also, DC’s population has been, net, stagnant since 1950. Vermont’s has increased by 70% and Wyoming’s has doubled. DC’s population advantage is perishable.
==
As for Puerto Rico, it should have been prepared for formal sovereignty on a timeline similar to that of the Philippines. It was and is its own place, not an apposite addition to the United States. The decision to grant Puerto Ricans American citizenship and to allow them unlimited migration to the mainland has distorted the island’s economy and generated issues in New York and other loci where Puerto Ricans have been common; their local human capital should have been devoted to the development of Puerto Rico, not exported to New York (where there interaction with the large society had its unfortunate aspects). Puerto Rico in 1950 had a population which exceeded that of several sovereign Latin American states.
==
An alternative to the current situation would be to allow all states and abiding territories (held more than 50 years) to participate in elections to the U.S. House and the Presidency. Posit the set the number of House members at the integer nearest the cube root of the total citizen population and apportion them among the various states and territories according to citizen population, with each receiving at least one. All Representatives from states would have one vote equal in value to that of all others. If a territorial delegation was assigned more than 1 member, they would be deemed Representatives and have an equal vote with all the others. If a territorial delegation was accorded 1 delegate but the ratio of citizens to delegates exceeded the mean of the states, that delegate would be deemed a Representative and have an equal vote with all the others. If the ratio of citizens to delegates was less than the mean of the states, it would be deemed an ‘observer’, have floor privileges, and receive committee assignments. It’s floor vote would be recorded but not added to the others except if the votes of the Representatives were tied. In that case, the votes of the observers would be assigned a fractional value and added to the rest to break the tie; the fractional value would be the citizen population of the territory in question divided by the ratio of citizens to representatives among the sum of states.
==
In re Presidential elections, you assign to each state and participating territory a quantum of electoral votes equal to the citizen population thereof. In most cases, the electoral votes would be awarded consequent to a statewide ballot. You can use an iterative process to identify those states which would be subdivided into constituencies. In these cases, the contest would occur in the constituency in order to award that subdivision’s electoral votes. At this time, California breaks naturally into five constituencies, Texas into five, Florida into four; Pennsylvania and Ohio into three each; and New York, Illinois, North Carolina, Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey, and Virginia into two each. Washington State, Arizona, and Massachusetts are borderline – one or two. You could draft a set of regular rules about determining the permissible range of constituencies and how they are properly drawn. NB, such a system would abolish the office of elector so you wouldn’t have a ceremony on 17 December or thereabouts nor any of the vulnerabilities which are appended to that. The electoral votes would be a tabulation convention
==
You might elect the President and the House in the 1st year of a quadrennial cycle (for four year terms) while the state legislatures elect the Senate the 3d year of a quadrennial cycle (again, for a four year term). Statewide elections are expensive and studies of the time use of Senators that while House members are drawn to spending time with constituents, Senators are spending time with donors. Were we to return to elections by state legislators, we would at least render donors less of a concern. NB, it is modal to elect governors and state legislators the 3d year of a quadrennial cycle, so the voting state legislators would be freshly elected.
==
Another thing we might do is eliminate the semi-elective Vice Presidency and have the president appoint up to a half dozen VPs to supervise portfolios of departments and agencies of the President’s choosing. We would have an order of succession to the Presidency incorporated into constitutional provisions and statutory law which would include these appointed VPs Were the Presidency vacated, a designated successor would occupy the post for a number of months. If the vacancy occurred late enough in the term (say, 17 months before the end), the successor might just fill out the term. Otherwise, the various state and territorial legislatures could convene to elect a successor from a list assembled according to a defined process. Posit that in 1974 that someone like George Schulz had assumed the presidency for a period of months, the state legislators had elected a new president in December, and the new president was sworn in sometime between his election and (say) April 1975 at such time as he was satisfied with his cabinet list.
==
We might also remove the President pro tem of the Senate and the Speaker of the House from the order of succession. The people who occupy those position seldom have a history as executives and the President of the Senate is commonly ancient. Ideally, the Speaker and the President pro tem would be elected from outside the chamber membership from the ranks of elderly or retired judges not much past age 75.
As for Puerto Rico, it should have been prepared for formal sovereignty on a timeline similar to that of the Philippines. It was and is its own place, not an apposite addition to the United States. The decision to grant Puerto Ricans American citizenship and to allow them unlimited migration to the mainland has distorted the island’s economy
Too facile. It is a lot more complex than you characterize.
PR the island cannot survive on its own today as an independent nation. Most residents on PR believe this and they are not wrong. The opinion on the island > 20 yrs ago when I lived there was one for independence from USA en total. However recent developments on the island have convinced residents that their government is corrupt, self-serving, has little power since La Junta (unelected federally appointed body) is the true governing body, and nothing changes on the island regardless of which political party rules.
Puerto Rico is largely a third-world nation today created incrementally over decades by the United States. Had the US cut them loose decades ago before Americanisms overcame their once unique culture, they would have had a chance of being another Jamaica, Bahamas or Grand Cayman. But that opportunity is long gone given that PR takes in far more than it contributes to the USA. IIRC, Federal spending gives PR $30 Billion while PR gives via federal taxes <$6 Billion. The sentiment on the island is split in three camps: 35% territorial status, 32% statehood, and 18% independence, according to the 2025, Laboratorio Puertorriqueño de Opinión Pública (LabPOP, or the Puerto Rican Public Opinion Lab research). Thus when Democrats argue that PR must become a state, they are ignoring the sentiment of those on the island of PR; IOW Democrats are doing what they always do to minorities: enslave the people of PR.
Too facile. It is a lot more complex than you characterize.
==
Its a three sentence summary, not a 300 page monograph. Get over yourself.
==
Countries with smaller populations and less in the way of aggregate human capital survive on their own. Puerto Rico’s most intense issue is it’s dysfunctional labor market. In an ordinary country, about 60% of the population over age 15 is employed at any one time; in Puerto Rico, the figure is about 35%.
==
Puerto Rico’s population bears more resemblance to that of Panama, Costa Rica, and the Dominican Republic than it does to Jamaica’s. The annual per capita product of those places is 2.5x that of Jamaica and their homicide rates are lower.
Socialism stands in the way of the rich getting richer at the expense of the lower and middle classes, who don’t participate in the same prosperity as the rich. This why the rich oppose it.
That is the most idiotic and moronic statement anyone has ever made.
The so-called rich create wealth and provide people with jobs.
The Constitution provides people the one and only thing any government ever could: FREEDOM.
Go start a business or get a job and create your own success in life.
If the rich were creating jobs, ‘more billionaires’ would mean ‘more jobs’. That’s not happening!
They’re shopping for talent globally. Citadel’s starting salary is 1 million.
Pretty stupid comment. The rich do not create jobs directly with their wealth. In in various assets. Again, you pretty stupid.
Almost all the rich started out as young adults struggling economically. You’ll understand our economic system better by not thinking in snapshots of what you see now before you, but rather how does prosperity develop over time. It’s a process. The main feature of this process distinct from socialism is individuals under capitalism are free to make their way through life, make their own spending decisions (OK, taxes!), consume, save and invest as they see fit, etc.
Under socialism, everyone gives up freedom and is bossed around by bureaucrats — to make ends meet. If there is a shortage of doctors, the bureaucrat can force unpaid hours upon doctors in order to deliver on the promise of free health care. Under socialism, the bureaucrat class steers wealth and comfort towards themselves at the expense of everyone else. That’s exactly how it is in Cuba. At least in capitalism, you are free to make your own decisions, own property, and the law protects it from being stolen by selfish bureaucrats or crooks.
Please explain how making the rich any less rich actually makes the poor any less poor.
In the old days, the very high marginal tax rate was used to encourage the very wealthy to invest in American factories, in higher wages, in basic research and development. The goal wasn’t to simply strip the wealth from the wealthy but to direct their investment to something other than offshore expansion and offshoring of American jobs and technology.
False. You do not understand taxes or policies or any of this.
High margical taxes DICOURAGE investment. When marginal tax rates were high – there were myriads of loopholes and no one came close to paying those tax rates.
The loopholes existed – because high marginal taxes are ALMOST the worst form of taxation
ATS – standard of living rises when you produce more that humans value with less human effort.
That is the definition of rising standard of living.
If in your job you are not consistently delivering more value with the same effort – you are preventing standard of living from rising.
It does not matter whether we use cheaper labor to produce what we want to improve productivity or we use less high skilled labor and automation to do so.
No matter what we must produce more with less. to increase standard of living.
Today the US is re-industrializing – production is moving from Europe and China to the US – not ALL production – but those things that can be automated generating smaller numbers of high skilled high paying jobs.
But we are about to enter a period more consequential than the industrial revolution – which raised Standards of living faster than ever before.
AI is going to massively improve productivity. But unlike the Industrial revolution, it is whte collar workers that either while massively increase their standard of living or lose their jobs.
Regardless the people that are displaced as productivity rises, WILL end up in other jobs.
NAFTA displaced about 4M US jobs – but nearly everyone who lost their job had another job in 9 months.
John Say, come on. Your NAFTA numbers are factually incorrect. NAFTA didn’t displace 4 million jobs; it displaced closer to 700,000. But the real issue is your claim that they all found equivalent work in 9 months. Decades of data on trade-displaced workers show that a massive percentage suffered permanent wage scarring, earning significantly less for the rest of their lives, or left the labor force entirely. When a market shifts rapidly, the price of specialized human capital can crash to zero, creating severe, long-term structural economic drag.
You rightly note that AI is different because it targets white-collar work. But because white-collar work deals with cognitive tasks, the transition won’t be as simple as the Industrial Revolution, which moved people from fields to factories. If AI exponentially scales cognitive productivity, it suppresses the market value of human labor across multiple sectors simultaneously. It’s not just about individuals losing jobs; it’s about a massive supply shock in the labor market that deflates wages for the jobs that remain.
This won’t improve standard of living. Not when corporations keep increasing prices and taking more money out of peoples pockets.
As a libertarian, you should recognize that government intervention (like occupational licensing and rigid education systems) makes it incredibly difficult for workers to adapt quickly. Pretending that the market magically heals itself in 9 months ignores the real-world barriers that prevent standard of living gains from being felt by the very people driving production. Productivity increases society’s wealth, but we can’t ignore the severe transaction costs borne by the displaced labor force along the way.
Republican policies and those poor decisions by Trump have not improved the economy and the standard of living for working Americans. It’s made it harder and with prices still increasing due to a war nobody wanted and stupid tariffs which failed to produce what Trump promised led to the massive losses in this election.
“Socialism stands in the way of the rich getting richer at the expense of the lower and middle classes”
No it doesn’t. It simply grants the ability to select who will be “rich” to a dictator and a small cadre of ruling party “leaders”, who also hold the privilege of owning all the guns, so they can make their decisions stick.
In the way? Wrong. Social democracies in Europe, for instance, have millionaires and billionaires. Russia is socialist. They got billionaires. PRC is communist, they got billionaires. Man you are lame.
Europe is a socialist Failure.
The left should be embarrassed for using Europe as an example of the way to govern.
Even socialists in Socialist europe are rioting against socialists,
Socialism stands in the way of ANYONE doing better.
The left has been shilling for European socialism in the US most of my life – Look at europe Today.
Even if you ignore the socialist on socialist violence throughout europe right now – European standards of living are about 35% lower than the US.
And NO this is not close to made up for by the social safety nat – and that is obvious.
Europes GDP is lower than the US – and that number INCLUDES all the services in the socil safety net.
But their population is significantly larger than the US
The German standard of living is about the same as the worst stat in the US – Mississpippi.
You left wing nuts can claim that you do not mean socialism like the USSR ro China or Pol Pot or Castro or Chavez, or …
But even if you means the socialism of Europe – YOU FAIL.
John Say, hilarious as ever. You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about.
Europe isn’t socialist; it’s hyper-capitalist. European countries rely entirely on free markets, robust private property rights, and global trade to fund their societies.
If you look at the Heritage Foundation or Cato Institute’s Economic Freedom Indexes, countries like Denmark, Sweden, and Finland score higher than the United States in areas like business freedom, monetary freedom, and property rights. They have fewer regulations on starting a business and freer trade than the U.S. does. They aren’t stifling achievement; they are leveraging free markets to create wealth.
Your idea of socialism is sadly stuck on the old Soviet and Venezuela models that have nothing to do with the Democratic Socialist ideas that do work in places like Scandinavia and even here.
Then you come up with the ridiculous false equivalence with Mississippi. Wow. Comparing Germany to Mississippi based purely on nominal GDP ignores reality. When you look at metrics that matter to individual liberty and well-being—like life expectancy, health outcomes, and infant mortality—Germany vastly outperforms the poorest U.S. states. Furthermore, European workers have the individual freedom to enjoy more leisure time. They prioritize work-life balance, meaning their lower GDP per capita is a reflection of a conscious choice to work fewer hours, not an inability to do well.
Clearly Europe has been better off than we have in many respects. China, is moving way past us in standard of living and economic power. Because they focus on their society not quarterly profits.
When you look at metrics that matter to individual liberty and well-being—like life expectancy, health outcomes, and infant mortality—Germany vastly outperforms the poorest U.S. states.
That is entirely a matter of demographics and genetics. When you compare like to like, the difference disappears.
No, ‘the rich’ and everyone of sense in New York oppose Cea Weaver because she knows nothing about how anything works and wants to seize their property.
“Eliminating the Electoral College imposes the dominion of direct, one-man, one-vote popular democracy upon the constitutional republic.
Unrestrained one-man, one-vote democracy is susceptible to becoming the dictatorship of the majority, the dictatorship of the poor, and, in its Marxist manifestation, the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Majoritarian democracy, absent constitutional restraints, is a potential vehicle for collectivism and communism.”
FOR THE TIMES THEY ARE ENDING
Stopping the launch of North Korea’s thermonuclear weapons with the capability of reaching our western states isn’t a priority.
One thing is for sure, the world is on the verge of total destruction and a few recognize it.
Got news for you. If NoKo can launch a nuclear weapon into low earth orbit, it can be instructed to re-enter ANYWHERE. Just because the US West Coast in closer to NoKo geographically doesn’t make Washington DC or NYC any safer.
North Korea successfully tested AI driven suicide, stealth, large and small drones and is making thousands of these weapons.
Personally, I’m more interested in whether or not we will approve same sex marriage for children 12 and under, as soon as wok takes over congress, or if we will have several months to produce wedding dresses in super small sizes.
Please cite your source(s) for this.
Afghanistan, via cretins like El-Sayed.
The institution of the Electoral Collage long ago lost it’s purpose of collective voting accountability.
Today we have the ability to institute and deploy One-On-One voting. What makes Electoral Collage today so obsolete is the sound fact that it can be Gamed. Taking a selection of choice States and you have enough Electoral Collage Seats to win the Election. The Electoral Collage is a system of gerrymandering the People into collective consensus of which within holds the bias of Individual-Selection.
The worry is not that the Electoral Collage will be abolished, it is that what will replace it.
Communism.
The Electoral College has not lost its purpose. It exists to preserve the States’ role in electing the President within our federal constitutional republic. The fact that candidates concentrate on competitive States is a campaign strategy, not evidence that the system is obsolete. Calling it “gerrymandering” is simply incorrect.
Replacing the Electoral College with direct, one-man, one-vote popular election would fundamentally alter the constitutional balance between the States and the people. The real question is not what might replace it, but why anyone would abandon the constitutional principles that justified its creation in the first place.
“Calling it “gerrymandering” is simply incorrect.”
What would you call grouping people into one Electoral Seat or another?
I call it ‘forced’. That’s the problem with drawing arbitrary line, that dis-appropriates the Voter (individual Citizen).
Further the E.C. creates more arbitrary lines by drawing it into States.
Abolishing the E.C. is not ‘abandoning’ a thing, particularly the Constitution. It is the replacement of the E.C. that would (may) result in a more Parliamentarian representation in Government by percentage of consensus of the Electorate.
Many Nation States operate this way. The problem is the American system is CONTROL. To many Factions are using the Electoral framework to CONTROL the Nation. The aspect of the Two-Party verses all Others is also a barrier (draws an arbitrary line) to a more equitable Electorate distribution.
Call the replacement what you will, however it is not Communism nor Socialism not the Democrat & Republican ideological dichotomy.
Calling it gerrymandering is incorrect because the state boundaries are not redrawn to achieve a result. What you don’t understand is that the states are not subdivisions of the USA; on the contrary, the USA is a federation of independent states. The union is created by the states, not the states by the union. And it is a union of states, not of people. It’s the united States. So it’s the people of the states that must elect the president, not the people as a whole.
This compact preserves the states’ role, in that it’s the states that are agreeing to it, and they may change their minds at any time. But you would eliminate their role altogether, and reduce them to mere administrative subdivisions of the union, which would make the union no longer a union at all but a unitary country.
Communism.
The Electoral College has not lost its purpose. It exists to preserve the States’ role in electing the President within our federal constitutional republic. The fact that candidates concentrate on competitive States is a campaign strategy, not evidence that the system is obsolete. Calling it “gerrymandering” is simply incorrect.
Replacing the Electoral College with direct, one-man, one-vote popular election would fundamentally alter the constitutional balance between the States and the people. The real question is not what might replace it, but why anyone would abandon the constitutional principles that justified its creation in the first place.
The house reps could elect a president if that’s true. Legisatures appoint electorate. Redundancy when its block majority vote. This means in two years a cycle or rotation will happen hopefully. Voters can vote a mix on ballots but they aren’t.
The Electoral College protects the Flyover States from Socialist coastal city states.
Myth, It enables the dismissal of them equally often than not.
“The institution of the Electoral Collage long ago lost it’s (sic) purpose of collective voting accountability.”
It never had that functionality. The original Constitution did not include citizens “voting” for the President at all.
“The original Constitution did not include citizens “voting” for the President at all.” – Anonymous at 3:38 PM
Lol: OH! so you see the problem and you won’t admit it (The original Constitution did not include citizens “voting” for the President at all).
So we have a détente my friend until we get this thing fixed.
Since the President is elected by the states and not by the people, there is no problem, nothing to “admit”, and nothing to “fix” (except possibly XVII).
Article II, Section 1:
“Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress”.
The Constitution enacts a federation of states, and the states elect the President.
The more direct democracy creeps into our federal system, the worse it performs. For example, it’s only via “primary” “elections” that unqualified clowns like Talarico and Islamofascists like Al-Sayed get elected to the Senate.
Th Electoral Collage – lets give this Institution a bit of ‘Truth in Advertising’ by calling it the Electoral Casino.
The problem is it’s method of “Allocation”, The use of Allocation immediately dismisses the minority number of votes.
Each Citizen places their bet (Vote) on the Field of Candidates. Some bets win, some bets loose. According to the majority of bets they are consolidated into an Electoral Seat (Allocated).
These Allocations are then further consolidated into a State Winner-take-All or At-Large Bets. Parties and Politicians then game these allocated bet positions for success (a Win).
It’s appropriate to look at this as a Casino because of the allocation-structure(s) created by the individual States and the Constitution’s federal allocation-structure.
“The House Always Win” (The Electoral Casino = The Electoral Collage) So the Citizens that placed loosing bet(s) never reach a position of Representation. They were ‘allocated out’ of the Constitutional Electoral system. There are no consolation prizes for (Looser) Representation given (they were dismissed along the process).
So that’s where the discourse in Jon’s examples are coming from. The oxymoronic problem with the Electoral Collage is that it was conceived to represent minority interest across the Electorate, but what is created was a framework wherein there is no consolation for minority Representation (minority interest).
There is no need to derive ONE mandated position (via the Electoral Collage system), when MUTIPLE positions can be assessed into allocation.
That’s the question: How do we FIX Allocation? So that Representation as a whole reaches All.
Ref.:
https://www.archives.gov/electoral-college/allocation
The Electoral Casino – “The House Always Wins”
So: ‘The Overlords of the UniParty Always Wins‘
The Prof’s attempt to hew the middle road on this indicates an unwillingness to accept the prospect of election in which the winner of the popular vote loses the election. But without that prospect the EC is meaningless. To put it in modern terms the EC electing a non-popular vote winner isn’t a bug, it’s a feature. It’s the ultimate protection of small states.
Estovir (garyesq2k2) Protecting the small states from ‘what’??
You’re basically arguing that a small minority, of mostly White people, should have the authority to veto the majority’s choice. How dies that make any sense??
You want to know? Look at how dysfunctional Canada is becoming, with a system that is first past the post, and the smaller provinces and regions with no effective representation or power. That’s why we have provinces like Alberta and Quebec seeking independence.
In the long run, conservative states will have NO choice but to secede from the Union if this comes to pass.
That is a filthy racist claim.
The Founders legislated that only white people could vote and only white people could be admitted to become citizens.
It’s not color. It’s culture. Example: native Americans had their own culture. Yes, the founders culturally the same and constructed a constitution for OURSELVES and OUR posterity. Immigrants agreed to assimilate culturally.
The Founders legislated that only white people could vote and only white people could be admitted to become citizens.
And that’s what the civil rights act changed
The Founders legislated that only white people could vote and only white people could be admitted to become citizens.
The Founders legislated that only white people could vote and only white people could be admitted to become citizens.
The Founders legislated that only white people could vote and only white people could be admitted to become citizens.
“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”
– Declaration of Independence, American Founders, July 4, 1776
The Declaration was addressed to King George and his Parliament. Apart from the obvious fact that Americans are not fighting the British, but themselves. It has ZERO applicability to 2026. You low IQ fool.
Numerous other nations including France and most of the liberation movements in S America were inspired by our Declaration. It was written to be a universal statement of the rights of man, so I would think it could still be applicable to us.
Your comment puts your IQ into negative numbers. Congratulations! That’s a first.
This passage from the Declaration is relevant today.
Next, the communists will announce their new supreme leader and dictator for life.
Are Americans going to let them do that without a shot being fired?
“The theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single sentence: Abolition of private property.”
– Karl Marx, Communist Manifesto
Wrong. It was and remains all about … equality. You certainly didn’t read the manifesto.
Are you equal to Elon Musk?
@Anonymous
Yes. If all you can see are $$$ in that equation, I pity you. You have utterly missed the point, and that your life is misery is on you.