The Fastest Way to Scrap the Electoral College

--Caller wants to know the easiest path towards eliminating the electoral college

Support The David Pakman Show:

Engage with us on social media:

-Call the 24/7 Voicemail Line: (219)-2DAVIDP

-Timely news is important! We upload new clips every day! Make sure to subscribe!

Broadcast on January 24, 2020

#davidpakmanshow #electoralcollege #popularvote

[Lucy-vkel]

Step 1: Get rid of the Electoral College
Step 2: Eliminate Gerrymandering
Step 3: Abolish the senate
Step 4: Voting rights for all citizens
Result: Democracy

[brianlawrence]

The electoral college worked exactly as intended in 2016. Just because you didn't get the result you wanted, doesn't mean the system is bad.

[hunternolasco]

Really disagree with David on his analysis of the electoral college. Not only will candidates only visit/pay attention to major cities. They would completely become biased to the views of people living in big cities. While ignoring any views/opinions of people in rural areas

[utterlyviolet]

Get people on board with ranked choice voting.

[trajan]

Larry Lessig has a more realistic approach. Make the electoral count proportional to the percentage of the votes in that state. To abolish the EC would take a constitutional amendment. The interstate compact would never be recognized by any hard red state and thus never garner enough support to be effective. But if Republicans knew that they could get 30% of CA and NY votes while giving up a small portion of lower count states, they might go for it.

[Curseius]

Phillip Fry meme:

Not sure if rhode island accent Or just wasted

[notthatperson]

Why is the electoral votes a "winner take all" on a state level?

[sohaibshehzad]

With this electoral college and the way your candidates are picked, the system can hardly be called Democratic or transparent.

[hasaniburton]

I’m looking forward to the day we come to our senses as a nation and realize that the Electoral College gets in the way of “one person, one vote.”

[roboman]

This is a terrible idea, it's bad enough many people live in states where a majority of counties support one party, but one or two counties with higher populations control the governor. Local rule matters, it makes no sense to have a popular vote, that just means all people lose local rule and are subject to being governed by people who do not represent them, that is the definition of tyranny. There are states where every county is republican but one or two urban counties, this is the definition of tyranny. People should not be governed by people that do not represent them. Sorry but this is a fascist idea if I ever heard it. You want people to be governed by parties they vote against, it's garbage. Many, many counties in USA vote differently then other counties in their state, people have a right to home rule. It makes no sense to make a country where people do not have fair representation, look at a map of voters by county. There are many states where all the counties vote republican, but one urban county decides the governor, that is not right, that is the opposite of democracy when people have politicians that do not represent where they live ruling then. This is the definition of fascism, tyranny by the majority. Electoral college is what gives rural counties any say so period.

[Patrick-qed]

Only 5% (or less) of the U.S. population lived in urban areas when the Constitution was adopted -- so that wasn't anything that motivated the electoral college. The Senate was formed to prevent states with huge population (like Virginia or Pennsylvania) from dominating all legislation. The "electoral college" system (that term doesn't appear in the Constitution) was adopted with a few purposes. One was the fear that a general popular vote would make it easier for a demagogue to get elected. (That worked out well, right?) The other was that states that enslaved many of their people wanted their enslaved population to count toward their power to choose the president. Thus, the electoral collage system gives each state a number of electors equal to its number of House members (where enslaved people counted for 3/5 of a person -- when, in fairness, they should not have been counted because it only increased the power of the slaveholders) plus its 2 senators (inserting the power of states regardless of population).

[musicmaneanda]

Candidates still don't really have to care about all 50 states with the electoral college. However, at least there are still significantly more areas to worry about than without the Electoral College. Without the Electoral College, literally only the people in California, Texas, Florida, and New York would matter.

[Patrick-qed]

What David says about the National Popular Vote proposed interstate compact is correct. But we should all we aware that there is a hurdle that would have to be overcome even if enough states adopt this proposal. In the Constitution, Article I, Section 10, it says:

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress . . . enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, . . . .

There would be a court challenge to popular vote compact. Now, the Supreme Court has held that some agreements are actually not forbidden by this clause in the Constitution, but people should realize that getting enough states to adopt the proposal is not the only hurdle.

[youngphenom]

Good. Now they don’t even have to campaign to us in flyover states. Just packed ass Cali and New York. 😊

[johnwright]

Everybody needs to press their state politicians....and try to get this done. Whatever it takes....I say!!!

[Bobertesq]

I don't like that system because won't it theoretically allow lets say a republican governor of ohio give the votes to the republican nominee when the democratic nominee won the state? It just seems even more undemocratic than the electoral college.

[cubsfan]

If the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact reaches 270+ I doubt we will see a Republican win for a long time

[dumat]

Guy sounded pretty baked, but at least he was coherent

[GraybeardWithUncommonSense]

The caller is wrong. The reasons for the Electoral College are more valid now than in 1787.

[erust]

I didn’t know this! That’s why I’m glad I found you David! Too bad we all aren’t looking to learn something!!