Georgia - 1 of 6 States to Determine Outcome of Presidential Election

[David Lockmiller]

Whatever happened to one man or (now) one woman, one vote?

And, in order to mollify Rob Wick: What would President Lincoln have said on this question regarding the existential meaning for democracy?

The only reason presidential candidates come to California is to collect election funding from rich people.

[Rob Wick]

Quote:What would President Lincoln have said on this question regarding the existential meaning for democracy?

Umm, David, you might want to familiarize yourself with a series of books entitled The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. In there, you can find the answer to your, er, question. To make it even easier, try this website.

Best
Rob

[David Lockmiller]

California has 54 total electoral votes (2 senators and 52 members of the House of Representatives) --- the most of any state.

You can be sure that the presidential candidates of both major parties would be in California seeking votes if all of the 54 electoral votes of the 270 necessary to win the national presidential election were up for grabs, based upon the proportionality of the California vote total for president by each candidate.

As the national election rules now stand, all of a state's electoral votes go to the candidate winning the majority of total presidential votes cast in the individual state.

My question: Why should 6 states determine a national presidential election?

That would not be a problem if my proposal for change in the electoral process were to be accepted as new election law.

---

(08-23-2024 10:09 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  

Quote:What would President Lincoln have said on this question regarding the existential meaning for democracy?

Umm, David, you might want to familiarize yourself with a series of books entitled The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln. In there, you can find the answer to your, er, question. To make it even easier, try this website.

Best
Rob

Rob, what term(s) might you suggest that I put in the search box?

[Rob Wick]

Simple. Democracy.

Look, David, I understand your point. You aren't the only one who seriously dislikes the Electoral College, but that is what the Founders saddled us with back when things were much different. The only way it's ever going to change is for those who dislike it to have enough power to change it.

I guess that Lincoln accepted the Electoral College much the same way he accepted the rest of the decisions of the Founders. Your attempt to tie your question to Lincoln, however, is disingenuous.

Best
Rob

[David Lockmiller]

(08-23-2024 10:44 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  Simple. Democracy.

Look, David, I understand your point. You aren't the only one who seriously dislikes the Electoral College, but that is what the Founders saddled us with back when things were much different. The only way it's ever going to change is for those who dislike it to have enough power to change it.

I guess that Lincoln accepted the Electoral College much the same way he accepted the rest of the decisions of the Founders. Your attempt to tie your question to Lincoln, however, is disingenuous.

Best
Rob

What proposals have been made to change the Electoral College process?

Reference sources indicate that over the past 200 years more than 700 proposals have been introduced in Congress to reform or eliminate the Electoral College. There have been more proposals for Constitutional amendments on changing the Electoral College than on any other subject. The American Bar Association has criticized the Electoral College as “archaic” and “ambiguous” and its polling showed 69 percent of lawyers favored abolishing it in 1987. But surveys of political scientists have supported continuation of the Electoral College. Public opinion polls have shown Americans favored abolishing it by majorities of 58 percent in 1967; 81 percent in 1968; and 75 percent in 1981.

Rob's post: The only way it's ever going to change is for those who dislike it to have enough power to change it.

According to the website cited above: "The ratification of the 12th Amendment, the expansion of voting rights, and the States’ use of the popular vote to determine who will be appointed as electors have each substantially changed the process."

As to your statement: "Your attempt to tie your question to Lincoln, however, is disingenuous." I disagree - I note that Lincoln was in favor of women having the constitutional right to vote. He was a man before his time.

[Rob Wick]

If it's as easy as you imply, why hasn't it been done before? More than 700 proposals have failed.

Also, your point about Lincoln and women is superfluous to your point about the Electoral College. How about sticking to one point at a time?

[David Lockmiller]

(08-23-2024 11:10 AM)Rob Wick Wrote:  If it's as easy as you imply, why hasn't it been done before? More than 700 proposals have failed.

Also, your point about Lincoln and women is superfluous to your point about the Electoral College. How about sticking to one point at a time?

The subject in general was elections and how to improve the voting process for all citizens.

Passed by Congress June 4, 1919, and ratified on August 18, 1920, the 19th amendment granted women the right to vote. The amendment states that "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex".

Back to my previous point, do you believe that my proposal regarding national elections is a good idea on the basis of my previous argument?

[Rob Wick]

Sorry David, but I'm not playing.

Best
Rob

[David Lockmiller]

Presidential Democrat candidate Kamala Harris just gave an acceptance speech for her party's nomination. In that speech, she announced that her policy as President of the United States will be to continue without any change the policy of President Biden regarding the arms shipments to Israel to conduct their "defensive" war against Hamas and the people of Gaza, including the shipment of two thousand pound bombs.

Furthermore, no speaker was permitted at the Democrat Party convention to speak about the ongoing war against the innocent Palestinian women, children, and men "living" in Gaza. Last week, it was reported that 330 Israeli soldiers have been killed in combat since October 7, 2023. The number of Palestinians killed in that same period of time is over 40,000 (not including those Palestinians killed and not counted because their bodies remain unrecovered under the rubble of their former homes). And, there are also issues of the increasing numbers of severely wounded with little or no medical care available, the ongoing terror of living in a combat zone, starvation of the population, communicable disease outbreaks, etc.

I am against our present government policy regarding the war in Gaza. I will not be voting for Kamala Harris to be the next President of the United States.

My vote does not matter. I live in California. As I said in a previous post on this thread: "You can be sure that the presidential candidates of both major parties would be in California seeking votes if all of the 54 electoral votes of the 270 necessary to win the national presidential election were up for grabs, based upon the proportionality of the California vote total for president by each candidate."

Michigan has 15 electoral votes. The Kamala Harris speech may make a difference in the outcome of the Michigan electoral vote. But it will not make any difference in the California electoral vote outcome. All 54 of the California electoral votes will go to Kamala Harris.

Had my proposed change been in place regarding the allocation of the California electoral vote (and, in all other states), it may have had a determining affect on the outcome of the presidential election this year.

Of course, this same principled argument of "one man or woman and one important vote" would apply to any important political issue: abortion rights, increased taxation of the billionaires, etc.

The continuance of the overwhelming importance of a small number of "battleground" states should not continue in this democracy. Every state, in every presidential election year, should be a "battleground" state. Every member of Congress lives in a "battleground" state regarding their own reelection. The same "voting" principle should be even more important regarding the election of the President of the United States.