The real problem with the Electoral College.

pikeshot1600

Ad Honorem
Jul 2009
9,985
I think that such a ruling would have to come before an election--not after an election. Else, courts are going to have to decide whether or not to overturn the results of an election--something that courts are probably going to loathe to do even if they will think that the challengers have a strong case on the merits.
Don't be too sure about that. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Futurist

David Vagamundo

Ad Honorem
Jan 2010
4,439
Atlanta, Georgia USA
If you don’t like the Electoral College, then push to amend the Constitution. But the smaller states, many of whose votes would be necessary to amend, like it the way it is. So . .
 

Chlodio

Forum Staff
Aug 2016
4,632
Dispargum
I think that such a ruling would have to come before an election--not after an election. Else, courts are going to have to decide whether or not to overturn the results of an election--something that courts are probably going to loathe to do even if they will think that the challengers have a strong case on the merits.
Before an election there are issues of standing. Under American personal injury law you can't bring a lawsuit until after you have been injured. After someone takes away your electoral votes and your presidency, then you have been injured, not before.

I don't think the Supreme Court is afraid to issue a partisan ruling. Justices like writing majority opinions, not minority opinions. The way to ensure that you are writing majority opinions is to pick a president on your side so that he will appoint more justices who will agree with you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JakeStarkey

JPK

Jun 2019
67
Chicago Suburbs
If you don’t like the Electoral College, then push to amend the Constitution. But the smaller states, many of whose votes would be necessary to amend, like it the way it is. So . .
It is not necessary to amend the constitution to amend the electoral college. The constitution gives the state legislatures the power to choose the method by which electors are chosen. The states that have it can get rid of the "winner take all" method of apportioning electors to a method that more closely represents the percentage of votes won in that state by the various candidates.
 

pikeshot1600

Ad Honorem
Jul 2009
9,985
It is not necessary to amend the constitution to amend the electoral college. The constitution gives the state legislatures the power to choose the method by which electors are chosen. The states that have it can get rid of the "winner take all" method of apportioning electors to a method that more closely represents the percentage of votes won in that state by the various candidates.
As mentioned somewhere above, the E.C. is not going anywhere. There are too many interests that understand how it can be used, and it is even unlikely that the changes you mention will be implemented - at least any time soon. The states that have few electoral votes do like their occasional collective "king maker" role. They are not going to change that. They like it when they can stick it to California and New York.
 
May 2019
210
Salt Lake City, Utah
You make a good point, pikeshot1600, but the fact is that states with 179 EV have already signed on. It only takes another 91 EV committed by states to make it happen.

Other states will have no standing to ask for remediation before a presidential election, and will have to wait until after one to cry injury. Since the Constitution reads that the states have the power to regulate federal elections, that injury claim will be climbing out of a coal mine before it climb uphill.
 

pikeshot1600

Ad Honorem
Jul 2009
9,985
You make a good point, pikeshot1600, but the fact is that states with 179 EV have already signed on. It only takes another 91 EV committed by states to make it happen.

Other states will have no standing to ask for remediation before a presidential election, and will have to wait until after one to cry injury. Since the Constitution reads that the states have the power to regulate federal elections, that injury claim will be climbing out of a coal mine before it climb uphill.
I appreciate all that, but the Wiki article referenced a few pages ago makes the point that, because of recent political winds, the Compact is unlikely to effect real change in the E.C. Although there appears to be popular sentiment for E.C. reform, it can be argued that entrenched political interests do not want that.

Another issue - maybe hypothetical; maybe not - is what effect the E.C. could have on a situation where POTUS loses a very close 2020 election in the E.C. and refuses to leave office claiming election fraud. It isn't something the current resident of the White House has not brought up before. That I think would be unprecedented, and also antithetical to the Constitution, but the US Constitution doesn't mean much to certain people.

But US politics is verboten here, so we will wait upon events. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: JakeStarkey

Futurist

Ad Honoris
May 2014
22,461
SoCal
Before an election there are issues of standing. Under American personal injury law you can't bring a lawsuit until after you have been injured. After someone takes away your electoral votes and your presidency, then you have been injured, not before.

I don't think the Supreme Court is afraid to issue a partisan ruling. Justices like writing majority opinions, not minority opinions. The way to ensure that you are writing majority opinions is to pick a president on your side so that he will appoint more justices who will agree with you.
Bush lacked standing in 2000 because he wasn't personally injured yet and yet SCOTUS still took his case, though.