Texas Republicans propose State Electoral college

[San Lumen]

Is the Republican Party just the party of bad ideas at this point? You'll fuck up entire state elections this way.

They dont care and only want to retain power at all costs even if it means rigging elections so they can never lose.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

I mean, I would argue against scrapping the Electoral College at the federal level as well as moving to a proportional system.

Scrapping the Electoral College at the federal level is maybe doable, by state initiative. Moving to a proportional system probably isn't, because that too would have to be done state by state and no state has the incentive to go first ... second ... etc. Because it means giving up on the full voting power of the state going to the winner there, who is very commonly the same party as the one who controls the state legislature. That is, partisan interest which made the "winner takes all" system in all but two states, is still in force keeping it that way. To ever agree to it, states would need to see it applied to every other state simultaneously, which is an order of impossibility up there with constitutional amendment.

You probably know this already. Maybe you can suggest a federal solution (without an amendment) that could apply proportional representation (for federal offices) across all the states. Sure as hell I can't.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Is the Republican Party just the party of bad ideas at this point? You'll fuck up entire state elections this way.

They dont care and only want to retain power at all costs even if it means rigging elections so they can never lose.

They should probably consider that over history, the federal electoral college favored Democrats as much as Republicans, and the way it's been kind to Republicans more recently won't necessarily last.

[Fluvannia]

I mean, I would argue against scrapping the Electoral College at the federal level as well as moving to a proportional system. I'm okay with ditching FPTP (like I said, I actually rather like approval voting), but I'd prefer to continue to be able to actually vote for my representative as opposed to some party list decided by God knows who. Mixed-member representation could be acceptable depending on the specifics, but since that would require an amendment, it seems like an alternate method of awarding each district is easier. Voting method is something decided at the state level, so it should be easier to change, as well as easier to tailor to the preferences of people within that state.

I don't mind reforming the EC, but if you want to scrap it, then the 17th Amendment needs to go with it in order to better preserve some sort of federal system. This is not a unitary state and never has been, it's far too diverse to function as one. In my opinion that diversity is a good thing, but this is the price we pay for it, so to speak.

Actually it wouldn’t need an amendment to change the voting system. You just have to have one that keeps district elected representatives. So STV, SNTV, IRV, two round, and approval voting would all work. MMP might be constitutionally legal as the constitution doesn’t say that all representatives have to be elected by local districts.

So technically congress could pass a law banning FPTP and requiring states to choose from STV, IRV, SNTV, two round, or approval voting.

Like I said -- "Voting method is something decided at the state level...". So...I never said an amendment would be needed there, states are free to determine their method and I'd prefer we keep it that way (including continuing to allow FPTP, even if I don't like it myself).

That being said, MMP may actually be constitutional (really not sure depending on what court rulings we look to as precedent) but current federal law says that all states with the exception of Hawaii and New Mexico (?) must use single-member districts, so that law would definitely need to be amended or repealed at minimum.

[Fluvannia]

I mean, I would argue against scrapping the Electoral College at the federal level as well as moving to a proportional system.

Scrapping the Electoral College at the federal level is maybe doable, by state initiative. Moving to a proportional system probably isn't, because that too would have to be done state by state and no state has the incentive to go first ... second ... etc. Because it means giving up on the full voting power of the state going to the winner there, who is very commonly the same party as the one who controls the state legislature. That is, partisan interest which made the "winner takes all" system in all but two states, is still in force keeping it that way. To ever agree to it, states would need to see it applied to every other state simultaneously, which is an order of impossibility up there with constitutional amendment.

You probably know this already. Maybe you can suggest a federal solution (without an amendment) that could apply proportional representation (for federal offices) across all the states. Sure as hell I can't.

I definitely can't either, the only real solution that wouldn't get immediately bogged down in legal battles would appear to be an amendment anyway...

I don't think scrapping the EC is doable either without an amendment. The popular vote compact some states have signed onto also appears to be an end-run that would be swatted down as needing the approval of Congress (because interstate compacts...need the approval of Congress), and claims that it's actually each state individually choosing to give their electors to the national PV winner would likely get challenged as potentially disenfranchising the state's voters if the state-level PV is won by someone other than the national PV winner.

[San Lumen]

They dont care and only want to retain power at all costs even if it means rigging elections so they can never lose.

They should probably consider that over history, the federal electoral college favored Democrats as much as Republicans, and the way it's been kind to Republicans more recently won't necessarily last.

Hence why they are proposing garbage like this

[Outer Sparta]

Well for one, it's Texas. For two, it's the Texas GOP organization doing this to keep power in a state that's been changing for the past decade.

[San Lumen]

Well for one, it's Texas. For two, it's the Texas GOP organization doing this to keep power in a state that's been changing for the past decade.

It’s doubtful it goes anywhere

[Thermodolia]

Actually it wouldn’t need an amendment to change the voting system. You just have to have one that keeps district elected representatives. So STV, SNTV, IRV, two round, and approval voting would all work. MMP might be constitutionally legal as the constitution doesn’t say that all representatives have to be elected by local districts.

So technically congress could pass a law banning FPTP and requiring states to choose from STV, IRV, SNTV, two round, or approval voting.

Like I said -- "Voting method is something decided at the state level...". So...I never said an amendment would be needed there, states are free to determine their method and I'd prefer we keep it that way (including continuing to allow FPTP, even if I don't like it myself).

That being said, MMP may actually be constitutional (really not sure depending on what court rulings we look to as precedent) but current federal law says that all states with the exception of Hawaii and New Mexico (?) must use single-member districts, so that law would definitely need to be amended or repealed at minimum.

No I’m saying that congress can outright change all electoral systems to something else like IRV, without the states consent

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Scrapping the Electoral College at the federal level is maybe doable, by state initiative. Moving to a proportional system probably isn't, because that too would have to be done state by state and no state has the incentive to go first ... second ... etc. Because it means giving up on the full voting power of the state going to the winner there, who is very commonly the same party as the one who controls the state legislature. That is, partisan interest which made the "winner takes all" system in all but two states, is still in force keeping it that way. To ever agree to it, states would need to see it applied to every other state simultaneously, which is an order of impossibility up there with constitutional amendment.

You probably know this already. Maybe you can suggest a federal solution (without an amendment) that could apply proportional representation (for federal offices) across all the states. Sure as hell I can't.

I definitely can't either, the only real solution that wouldn't get immediately bogged down in legal battles would appear to be an amendment anyway...

I'm not afraid of legal battles. I'm only afraid of losing them, 'cos SCOTUS won't want a piece of them again for a while.

I don't think scrapping the EC is doable either without an amendment. The popular vote compact some states have signed onto also appears to be an end-run that would be swatted down as needing the approval of Congress (because interstate compacts...need the approval of Congress), and claims that it's actually each state individually choosing to give their electors to the national PV winner would likely get challenged as potentially disenfranchising the state's voters if the state-level PV is won by someone other than the national PV winner.

I have a slightly more optimistic view of the popular vote compact. It comes down to this: approval of Congress isn't out of the question.

The legal object you bring up has been talked about a lot on NSG. I have to admit that it's not conclusive either way. Say it's 49/51 in some State, and under the current system the 49% don't just get disenfranchised, their votes are actually switched to support the 51%. If that's acceptable, then why isn't the 51% being switched to support the 49%? Again, not just disenfranchising (which is beyond acceptable, it's necessary in any FPTP system ... the minority's votes may as well be thrown away for all the representation they gain).

Now bear in mind it's all for the sake of honoring the national popular vote. The minority of national voters have their votes discarded, too, but at least they're not switched to create a false representation of unanimity. I would argue that the greater good of fairly representing voters in other states, justifies the slightly increased injustice of vote switching within a state.

Though as I said, I don't consider that a definitive argument. It is a matter of law, after all, and the only people whose opinion on it IS definitive are the SC Justices.

[Kombinita Socialisma Demokratio]

Could be worse.
Could be better.

At least change from winner-takes-all in each section to somewhat proportional, like Maine's electoral votes.

I can understand some sort of system preventing an outcome such that any continuous section containing over around ten percent of the population/voters is VERY against it. But only in order to promote unity and discourage violence/violent secession.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Like I said -- "Voting method is something decided at the state level...". So...I never said an amendment would be needed there, states are free to determine their method and I'd prefer we keep it that way (including continuing to allow FPTP, even if I don't like it myself).

That being said, MMP may actually be constitutional (really not sure depending on what court rulings we look to as precedent) but current federal law says that all states with the exception of Hawaii and New Mexico (?) must use single-member districts, so that law would definitely need to be amended or repealed at minimum.

No I’m saying that congress can outright change all electoral systems to something else like IRV, without the states consent

Voting Rights Act tried something actually milder than that, and it's not travelling so well.

[Nobel Hobos 2]

Silly Texas. What you need to do is have Democrats elect by primaries one person, Republican elect by primaries another person, then the Judiciary would select one from among their senior ranks to create the ruling Triumvirate. I suggest the Council of All Texas For Integration Glory and High Taxes, or CATFIGHT for short.

OK, I admit I'm just trying to come up with a worse system than Electoral College, but it would work to retain at least a share of power for Republicans in the future ...

Dont give them ideas.

I should make it more ridiculous I know. So not even a Texas Republican would take it seriously.

How about elephants and donkeys? All elected officials must ride their official animal. At all times.

[Nuroblav]

Ah yes, electoral college. As far as I know, thanks to the nationwide electoral
college it's possible to become president with just 22% of the people's vote (and that's assuming every state requires at least just over half of the population to vote for you, which isn't always the case.

There's a problem with that.

In popular vote, it's not democracy, it's tyranny of the majority.

So what do you propose? Anarcho-Egoism? Pope-style elections where it continues until a unanimous verdict? A tyranny of the minority which is somehow better?

[Gormwood]

Far as I'm aware no Democrat has ever won by electoral college while losing the popular vote.

[-Astoria-]

Fuck no; as if the national one isn't bad enough.

[La Xinga]

Eh, sure, why not, don't see the issue.

[Estanglia]

Sounds like the Texas Republicans are trying this move just so they can hold onto power for longer.

[-Astoria-]

Dont give them ideas.

I should make it more ridiculous I know. So not even a Texas Republican would take it seriously.

How about elephants and donkeys? All elected officials must ride their official animal. At all times.

Isn't that just a rodeo with extra steps?

[Sundiata]

If only the United States abolished the electoral college entirely. I personally would prefer a system close to the Norwegian model, frankly.

[Parxland]

https://americanindependent.com/texas-gop-electoral-college-rig-elections-popular-vote-senate/?fbclid=IwAR2XnNrZoxrLTk5t9ULJ49q7JO8v1vQQJ9sRNQWLhDz6NmFaPm1s-sXtZIs

https://lawandcrime.com/2020-election/l ... itutional/

Republicans in Texas are proposing a state electoral college to chose statewide officials to overturn a popular vote victory. Delegates would chosen by each state senate district who would then chose state officials. They are likely proposing this due to the most populous counties leftward trend.

This proposal is undemocratic and unconstitutional as it would violate one man one vote and could mean a Republican always wins a statewide election. Land area shouldn’t determine who wins only the number of votes you get. It’s beyond obvious at this point Republicans hate democracy.

Your thoughts nsg?

Republicans are corrupt right-wingers that do fascist things to gain more political power.

I'm not going to let a handful of leftist cities decide the fate of the rest of us. I'd rather wall off Atlanta and let them become a city state before I let them decide what happens to my state. The Democrats can't rule by mob, the rest of us won't stand for it.

Silly Texas. What you need to do is have Democrats elect by primaries one person, Republican elect by primaries another person, then the Judiciary would select one from among their senior ranks to create the ruling Triumvirate. I suggest the Council of All Texas For Integration Glory and High Taxes, or CATFIGHT for short.

---

My actual opinion:

Fuck no; as if the national one isn't bad enough.

^This.

[San Lumen]

Eh, sure, why not, don't see the issue.

You don’t see the issue? You’d think it’s fair if a democrat got the most votes for governor or any statewide office but didn’t win because they didn’t carry a majority of state senate districts egich is what Is being proposed. It’s a nearly impossible feat for a Democrat to pull off

[The Reformed American Republic]

[Redacted]

[La Xinga]

Eh, sure, why not, don't see the issue.

You don’t see the issue? You’d think it’s fair if a democrat got the most votes for governor or any statewide office but didn’t win because they didn’t carry a majority of state senate districts egich is what Is being proposed. It’s a nearly impossible feat for a Democrat to pull off

Uhm, why does this favor more Republicans than Dems?

[San Lumen]

You don’t see the issue? You’d think it’s fair if a democrat got the most votes for governor or any statewide office but didn’t win because they didn’t carry a majority of state senate districts egich is what Is being proposed. It’s a nearly impossible feat for a Democrat to pull off

Uhm, why does this favor more Republicans than Dems?

Gerrymandering is the primary reason. Why shouldn’t the person with the most votes win?