Subj : Electoral College Veto
To   : Mike Powell
From : Lee Lofaso
Date : Sun Jun 02 2019 12:17 am

Hello Mike,

>>Should the US continue to use the electoral college system
>>as the basis for choosing its presidents?  Most people in Nevada
>>think so.  But not all of them, as the governor has vetoed a
>>bill passed by both houses to do just that -
>
>>Any comments?
>
>Signing a bill pledging your state's electoral college votes to whoever
>wins the national popular vote is basically telling your state's citizens
>that their votes count even less than they do now.

Their votes would be counted as part of the national popular vote,
as it is now.  Except their votes would actually be counted, as the
national popular vote would be direct democracy rather than what we
have now.

It would be more like having one big giant state with
only the popular vote counting towards who gets elected
president/vice president.  Direct democracy.  Nothing
indirect.  The people themselves voting directly for
their candidate(s) of choice.

A number of other states have passed this type of legislation.
At present, that number amounts to about 170 electoral votes.
It takes 270 electoral votes for a candidate to win.  Therefore,
if enough states amounting to 270 electoral votes decide to use
the national popular vote as their decision as to who to vote
for, then the national popular vote would in effect replace the
electoral college - without the need to amend the Constitution.

>The way it is now, their votes decide who their state electorate votes for
> (barring any unfaithful electors)...

Indirect democracy.  With no guarantee their choice will be elected
by the electors, or even by the electors chosen by their candidate.

>doing it the way the bill says to means that it does not matter how the
> state's citizens vote because their state is always going
>to the winner of the rest of the country.

With direct democracy, all votes are counted.  With indirect
democracy, no votes are guaranteed to be counted.

The way the bill is structured, it would only take effect if the
total number of states that have passed the same type of legislation
amounts to at least 270 electoral votes.  Anything less would make
it frivolous.

Should we have direct elections for president/vice president?
Or should we retain the electoral college system as our basis?

In the 2000 presidential election between Bush and Gore, the
state of Florida was prepared to completely do away with the popular
vote in Florida, the secretary of state acting on Jeb Bush's behalf
to have the Florida legislature name its own electors - who would
vote for George W. Bush, as directed by his brother.  This was their
fallback position had Al Gore been shown to have received more valid
popular votes cast than George W. Bush.

As can plainly be seen, we the people have no real vote at all.
And neither to the electors supposedly chosen by we the people.

Fortunately, nine justices of the USSC stepped in and decided
the matter once and for all - by a five to four vote.  Thus negating
all the popular votes cast throughout the nation.  As well as the
electoral college (which was never mentioned by any of the justices).

--Lee

-- 
Erections, That's Our Game

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
 * Origin: - nntp://rbb.fidonet.fi - Lake Ylo - Finland - (2:221/360)

.