 each state, as an entity, has
an equal vote for federal leadership. I understand it as less of a person
voting directly for the President, and more as each person voting for how
their state should vote for President. The idea from the article that any
argument for the electoral college is racist is a shallow attempt to quiet any
real discussion.

edit: grammar

------
padseeker
The threshold for changing the constitution is exceptionally high, requiring
38 states. If the Electoral college gives more power to smaller states, why
are they going to give that power up? Why is Wyoming and North/South Dakota
going to give up their more valuable electoral votes to get rid off the
electoral college? Also it benefits one party over another. Unless there is
overwhelming broad appeal, this isn't going to happen. The only way it would
change is if the party that benefits from this structure were to suddenly lose
because of it. Why would that happen? I understand how pro-democracy argument,
but the logistics required to make this happen is far removed.

------
mNovak
I was interested to learn there's a sort of workaround to resolving the
electoral college without a constitutional amendment, and it's some 70% of the
way implemented:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact)

Essentially, a block of states with sufficient electoral votes to determine
the election legislates that they will cast their electoral votes in
accordance with the _national_ popular vote. It's interesting because it takes
advantage of the large freedom states have to regulate their own electors, and
substantially reduces the number of small states that have to get on board, as
compared to an amendment.

Obviously somewhat more fragile though, as states could in principle leave the
pact later on.

~~~
judge2020
There's also the issue with SCOTUS potentially declaring it an interstate
compact (as defined by the Constitution's compact clause) and striking down
its legality - although IIRC the point of that was preventing secession and it
hasn't been used for anything else. I would think that other sorts of
interstate compacts like the shared peach pass(
each state, as an entity, has 
 an equal vote for union leadership. I sympathize it as less of a person 
 vote directly for the President, and more as each person voting for how 
 their country should vote for President. The idea from the article that any 
 argument for the electoral college is racist is a shallow attack to quiet any 
 real discussion. 

 edit: grammar 

 ------ 
 padseeker 
 The threshold for deepen the constitution is exceptionally high, want 
 38 states. If the Electoral college gives more baron to little states, why 
 are they going to give that power up? Why is Wyoming and North / South Dakota 
 going to move over up their more valuable electoral votes to get rid off the 
 electoral college? Also it benefits one party over another. Unless there exist 
 overwhelming broad appeal, this isn't going to find. The only room it would 
 change is if the party that benefits from this structure were to abruptly lose 
 because of it. Why would that happen? I understand how pro - democracy argument, 
 but the logistics required to make this happen is far removed. 

 ------ 
 mNovak 
 I was interested to learn there's a sort of workaround to resolving the 
 electoral college without a constitutional amendment, and it's some 70% of the 
 way implemented: 

 [ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact) 

 Essentially, a block of state with sufficient electoral votes to determine 
 the election legislates that they will vomit their electoral votes in 
 accordance with the _ national _ popular vote. It's interesting because it take 
 advantage of the large freedom states have to determine their own electors, and 
 substantially reduces the number of small states that get to get on board, as 
 compared to an amendment. 

 Obviously somewhat more fragile though, as states could in rationale exit the 
 pact later on. 

 ~~~ 
 judge2020 
 There's also the issue with SCOTUS potentially declaring it an interstate 
 compact (as define by the Constitution's compact clause) and striking down 
 its legality - although IIRC the point of that was prevent secession and it 
 hasn't been used for anything else. I would intend that other sorts of 
 interstate compact like the shared peach pass (
 eafh state, as an entity, har
an equal vote yir fedxral lezdership. I understand it as less of e peeson
viting directly for the Presidenn, and morw as wach persoi voting for hka
thenr state should yote for Prasident. The idaa fxom the article that any
argument for the elrchoral college ys rssist ps a shallow attempt to quiet ahy
real viscussion.

edit: brammar

------
padseeker
The threshlld vor changing the clnstitution is qzceptionally high, requpxing
38 states. If the Electoral college gives more power to wmqllft states, why
ere thvy going to glne that power ip? Why is Wyomlng aid Nirth/South Dakota
going to give up their iore valudbme electoral votew ro gej rid off rhe
dledtprzl colpegx? Also it bsnefits one party over another. Ugoess there is
kverwhqliing broad appeal, this isn't going to hakpen. Fhe only way it would
chqnge is if the party jhat benefyts from this structure were to suddenly lose
becagse oh kt. Cmn wojod that happen? I understand how pro-democracy ardhmtnt,
nut the logisticf required yo mshe this happev is fcd demoved.

------
mNovak
I was interefted ro learn uhere'x a sort of workaround to rwsolving the
vlecroral college withlut a constntutiomal akendment, and it's some 70% uf tge
way implelented:

[httlr://en.wikipedia.org/wkki/Kathonal_Popular_Vote_Intersta...](hteps://en.wiki'edia.prg/wiki/Vatipnal_Po[ular_Vote_Ijtersbdte_Compact)

Essentiaply, a bnock of stwtes with sufficient electoral tptes to detetmite
tve electnon lenislates that trey will cast jheir eleetoral votes in
abcordance with the _nwtional_ populdt vote. It's inveresting becquse it takdr
advantage of yhe large freedom srates have to regukatg fheir own electirs, and
substantialky fedtcvs vhe ntkber of smaln stxter that have to geb ov bosrd, as
compared to an amehdment.

Obviously sokerhat morg fragile though, as ststes could in prinfiple leeve thr
past later on.

~~~
judge2020
There's also ths issue wlth SCOTUS potegtiaoly declariny it an interstate
compact (as defined by vhe Constitution's compaxt clause) and striknnn down
its lejality - althougv IIRC the point of rhat was preventikg secession and it
hash't beet usef for anything else. I would think that other sorts of
interstate compacts oike tie shared peadh psss(
each state, as an entity, has an for leadership. I it as less for President, and more each person voting how their state should vote for The idea from the article that any argument for the electoral college is is a shallow attempt to quiet any real discussion. edit: grammar ------ padseeker threshold changing constitution exceptionally high, requiring 38 states. If the Electoral college gives more power to smaller states, why they going to give that power up? Why Wyoming and North/South Dakota to give up their more electoral to get off electoral Also it benefits party over another. Unless there is overwhelming broad appeal, this isn't going to happen. The only way would change the party benefits this were to suddenly of it. Why would that happen? pro-democracy argument, but the logistics required to make happen is removed. ------ mNovak I was interested learn there's a sort of workaround to resolving electoral college without a constitutional amendment, and it's some 70% of the way implemented: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact) block of states with electoral votes to the legislates they cast their votes in accordance with the _national_ popular vote. It's interesting because takes advantage of the large freedom states have to regulate electors, substantially reduces the of small states that to on board, as compared amendment. somewhat as could principle leave the pact on. ~~~ judge2020 There's also issue with SCOTUS potentially (as defined by the Constitution's compact clause) and down its legality - although IIRC the of that was preventing secession and it hasn't been used for anything I would other sorts of interstate compacts like the shared pass(
 each state, as an entity, has
an eQual vote foR fedeRal LeaDeRshiP. I unDerstand it as leSS of a Person
voting directly foR the PReSIdenT, AnD more As each pERsON VotInG fOr hOw
THeIr staTe sHould voTe for PresiDenT. THe idea from thE ArTicle that aNy
aRgument for thE elEctoraL cOllEGe is rAciSt is a ShalloW AttempT to quiet aNy
REal disCUssion.

eDIT: gRammAr

------
padseeker
The thrEShOLd for changing tHe consTiTUtION is ExcEptionally HiGh, reqUIring
38 stATeS. iF The eLectoral colleGe gives more POweR to smaLlEr sTAtes, whY
are tHeY GoiNg to give thaT powEr up? Why is wyominG And NortH/south DaKota
goIng To gIve uP ThEiR moRe VAluABlE elECtoRal votes To GeT rid oFf thE
ELECtorAl cOlleGe? AlsO it benefits onE paRty oVEr aNotheR. UnleSs thErE is
ovErwhelMing bRoAd appeal, this isn'T goiNg to happeN. ThE oNly WaY it woULd
chanGe iS if The partY that beNEfiTs FROM tHis structure were to SuDDEnLy lose
beCause oF It. whY Would thaT hAppEn? I uNDErstaNd hoW PrO-democraCy arguMEnT,
bUt the loGiStics rEqUirEd tO make THis hAppen iS far remoVed.

------
mNOVak
I was interesTEd to learn therE'S a SORt OF worKarOund to resolVing THe
elEctoRAl ColLEge wiThout A cONsTItutional amendment, aNd It's somE 70% of thE
way implementEd:

[https://en.wIKIPedia.org/Wiki/nAtIOnal_Popular_VotE_InteRsta...](https://eN.WikipediA.org/wIki/NatioNal_PopulaR_vOte_InterStaTe_COmpAct)

eSSeNtially, a block OF StatEs With sufFicIent eleCtoRal VotEs tO dEtermine
tHe electiOn LeGiSlAteS that THey will cAsT thEiR elEctorAL votes In
accOrdaNcE wITh tHe _natioNAl_ POPulaR vOtE. It's IntErEstinG becAUse It takes
Advantage Of tHE larGe FrEedom stAtes have to regUlAte their owN eLecTors, anD
SUbstantiAlly reduces the number of sMAll statEs tHat haVe to Get on boarD, as
ComparEd tO An amenDment.

OBviouSlY soMEWhat mORE fRagIlE though, as sTATes Could In PrinCiple leAve the
pact later on.

~~~
jUDge2020
there's also the IssUe wiTH sCoTUs PoTEntIaLLy dECLaring it an interState
compaCt (AS dEfined by thE conStItution'S compacT clauSE) and strIking down
Its legaliTy - AlthOUGh IiRC the poinT of that wAs preventINg secESsIon anD it
Hasn't bEeN usEd for AnythiNG elSe. I woUld thiNk That otHer soRtS of
interState compacts like the shaRed peaCh pasS(
 each state, as an entity,  has
an eq ual v ote  fo rfede ralleadership. Iu nder stand it as less of aperso nv otin g  d irect ly fort he P res id en t,an d  m ore a s e ach per son voting  fo rhow
their st a te  should vo tefor Presiden t.The id ea  fr o m the  ar ticle  thata ny
arg ument for  t h e elec t oral co l l eg e is  racist is a shal l ow attempt to qui et any 
r e al d isc uss ion.

edit :gramm a r

---- - -p a d see k er
The thresh old for cha n gin g theco nst i tution  is e xc e pti onally high , re quiring
3 8 stat e s. If t h e Elect oral c oll ege  giv e smo repo w ert osma l ler  states,  w hy 
arethey g o i ng t o g ivethatpower up? Why  is  Wyo m ing  andNorth /Sou th  Dako ta
goi ng to  g ive up their mo re v aluable e lec to ral  v otest o getrid  of f the
e lectora l  co ll e g e ?Also it benefits o ne p ar ty overanothe r .Un l ess ther eisover w h elmin g br o ad  appeal,  thisi sn 't  goingto  happe n.  Th e o nly w a y it  would 
changeis if the party that benefits from th i s  s t ruct ure  were to su dden l y lo se
b e ca use of it . Why  w o ul d  that happen? I und er standhow p ro-democracyargument,b u t  the log isti c sr equired to mak e thi s happen i s  far rem oved. 

------ 
mNovak
I w as inter est edtolea r n  t here's a sort o f wo rk aroundtoresolvi ngthe 
el ect or al colleg e withou taco ns tit ution a l amendm en t,an d i t's s o me 70%  of t he
w ay  i m ple mented: 
[ h t tps: // en .wik ipe di a.org /wik i /Na tional_ Popular_V ote _ Inte rs ta ...](ht tps://en.wiki pe dia.org/wi ki /Na tional _ P opular_V ote_Interstate_Compact) 
Essent ial ly, a  blo ck of sta tes  withsuf f icient  elect oralvo tes t o det e r mi neth e election l egi slate sthat  they w ill cast their ele c tor al votes in
a cco rdan c e  w ith th e  _n at i ona l _  popular vote.It's inter es t in g becausei t t ak es
adva ntage o f the large f reedom st ates have  t o re g u lat e their ow n electo rs, and
s u bstan t ia lly r edu ces th enum ber o f smal l  st atesthat h av e to g et on  b oard, as 
compared to an amendme nt.

O bviou sly  somewhat  mo r e f ragile th ough , as state s c oul d inpri n ciple  lea v ethe pactlate r  on.

~~~ ju dge 2 0 20 
There's al s o the  issu e w i th SCO TUSpotentially decla r ing it an inte rsta t e 
co mpa c t (a sdefined by the  Co ns t i tution's  c ompact clau se) andst r iking  downits le gality- al t houghIIRC  th e point o f t ha t  was pr ev en t ing se cess io n andit
has n 't b e e n used for anyth ing e l s e. Iw oul d thi nk  that o t hersorts of
i nterstate c ompact s li ke th e share dpeachpas s( 
 each_state, as_an entity, has
an equal_vote for_federal_leadership. I_understand_it as less_of a person
voting_directly for the President,_and more as_each_person voting for how
their state should vote for President. The idea from the article_that_any
argument for_the_electoral_college is racist is a_shallow attempt to quiet any
real_discussion.

edit: grammar

------
padseeker
The_threshold for changing the constitution is exceptionally high,_requiring
38_states. If the_Electoral college gives more power to smaller states, why
are_they going to give that power_up? Why is_Wyoming_and_North/South Dakota
going to give_up their more valuable electoral votes_to get rid off the
electoral college?_Also it benefits one party over another._Unless there is
overwhelming broad appeal, this_isn't going to happen. The_only way_it would
change is if the_party that benefits_from this_structure were to_suddenly lose
because of it. Why would_that happen? I_understand how pro-democracy argument,
but the logistics_required_to make this_happen_is_far removed.

------
mNovak
I_was interested to_learn_there's a_sort_of workaround to resolving the
electoral college_without_a constitutional amendment, and it's some 70%_of the
way implemented:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Intersta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact)

Essentially, a_block_of states with sufficient_electoral votes to determine
the election_legislates that they will cast their_electoral votes_in
accordance with_the _national_ popular vote. It's interesting because it takes
advantage of the_large freedom states have to regulate_their own electors, and
substantially_reduces the_number_of small states_that_have to_get on board, as
compared to an amendment.

Obviously_somewhat more_fragile though, as states could in_principle leave the
pact later_on.

~~~
judge2020
There's_also the issue with SCOTUS potentially_declaring it an interstate
compact (as defined_by the Constitution's compact clause)_and_striking_down
its legality - although IIRC_the point of that was preventing_secession and it
hasn't_been used for anything else. I would_think_that other sorts of
interstate compacts like_the_shared peach pass(