Lodge-Gossett Amendment

[Teach]

Back in 1950, when I was still in elementary school, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge (R-MA) and Rep. Ed Gossett (D-TX), proposed a change to the Electoral College system (it was amended once, the 12th Amendment, in 1804 after the Jefferson-Burr fiasco). After the passage of that 12th Amendment, the President and Vice-President - and they have for the past 200 years - run as a team, a ticket).

As a former history and government teacher, I thought this Lodge-Gossett amendment – I’ll spell it out in a moment – had merit. My own opinion is that the current winner-take-all, state-level outcome is out of date, an anachronism.

What Lodge and Gossett proposed is that instead of winner-take-all, the outcome of each state would be a number proportionate to the state’s popular vote. For example, I’m currently looking at the outcome of the Florida popular vote. Instead of all of Florida’s 29 electoral votes (yes, I voted for Hillary Clinton; yet it could work the other way, too) going to Donald Trump, the vote would, as mentioned be divided proportionately. In this case: Donald Trump gets say 15 of Florida’s electoral vote total and Hillary Clinton would get 14. Out of 9 million votes cast, the difference between the two candidates was a little over 100,000 votes.

My reasoning is that millions of Florida residents are being disenfranchised. Yes, they had the right to vote and their candidate lost. I'm not using "sour grapes"; I'm just proposing what I believe to be a better, more equitable way. It does seem a shame that many, many votes, whatever the state or party, become meaningless. I know that’s how the game is played and I abide by it; yet I believe there must be a better way.

Another factor is that the solid “blue” states and the “solid “red” states rarely get to see the candidates, at least in person. Most of the candidates’ time is spent in a handful of “battleground” states.

Oh, by the way, the Lodge-Gossett amendment passed the Senate by a super majority, but it failed in The House.

[EasyGoer89]

Anyone could have brought this up before the election yet nobody did.

[Teach]

EasyGoer89,

I agree. This thought. This amendment, the Lodge-Gossett, has been on my mind for several years. It may well be a moot point. I can't see our current system changing for many years. As a rule, most people are leery of change.

The "Founding Fathers" were afraid of "splinter" parties causing every election to be decided by the House (President) and Senate (Vice-President). Basically, our early leaders didn't trust the average citizen. They didn't feel they were qualified to make sound judgments.

[johnhannibalsmith]

Anyone could have brought this up before the election yet nobody did.

Because the crazy theory then was that it might work in the reverse with Trump managing to compete for the popular win but getting destroyed in the election.

I don't really understand why if you are going to change the mechanism you would opt for a weird compromise like Lodge-Gossett rather than just moving to a popular vote. Other than retaining the obscure threat that the will of the people may not mean anything, I can't quite imagine what upside another convoluted system would have over that which the people pining for change claim to actually want, a simple popular vote tally.

[Teach]

I mention Lodge-Gossett because it is a step, a step toward a popular vote. True democracy. Times have changed. People are better educated. It took about 125 years to let the people decide who their U.S. Senators were (previously done by state legislatures).

[Teach]

I'd be curious to know how many world democracies use an electoral college system, or something akin to it.

[xtb]

The electoral college is a compromise. One extreme is each state gets one vote. The other end of the spectrum is every voter gets one vote and they all count the same in the big picture (popular vote). Lodge-Gossett is very similar to the popular vote.

We live in a Constitutional Republic with elements of democracy. A pure democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.

[MONEY]

True democracy.
We are not a Democracy we are a Republic.
A true Democracy or mob rule might be a bad thing.

Democracy vs Republic
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic

[boxcar]

Back in 1950, when I was still in elementary school, Senator Henry Cabot Lodge (R-MA) and Rep. Ed Gossett (D-TX), proposed a change to the Electoral College system (it was amended once, the 12th Amendment, in 1804 after the Jefferson-Burr fiasco). After the passage of that 12th Amendment, the President and Vice-President - and they have for the past 200 years - run as a team, a ticket).

As a former history and government teacher, I thought this Lodge-Gossett amendment – I’ll spell it out in a moment – had merit. My own opinion is that the current winner-take-all, state-level outcome is out of date, an anachronism.

What Lodge and Gossett proposed is that instead of winner-take-all, the outcome of each state would be a number proportionate to the state’s popular vote. For example, I’m currently looking at the outcome of the Florida popular vote. Instead of all of Florida’s 29 electoral votes (yes, I voted for Hillary Clinton; yet it could work the other way, too) going to Donald Trump, the vote would, as mentioned be divided proportionately. In this case: Donald Trump gets say 15 of Florida’s electoral vote total and Hillary Clinton would get 14. Out of 9 million votes cast, the difference between the two candidates was a little over 100,000 votes.

My reasoning is that millions of Florida residents are being disenfranchised. Yes, they had the right to vote and their candidate lost. I'm not using "sour grapes"; I'm just proposing what I believe to be a better, more equitable way. It does seem a shame that many, many votes, whatever the state or party, become meaningless. I know that’s how the game is played and I abide by it; yet I believe there must be a better way.

Another factor is that the solid “blue” states and the “solid “red” states rarely get to see the candidates, at least in person. Most of the candidates’ time is spent in a handful of “battleground” states.

Oh, by the way, the Lodge-Gossett amendment passed the Senate by a super majority, but it failed in The House.

No one in Florida was disenfranchised. The core principle behind the electoral college is the preservation of each state's sovereignty. The citizens of Florida voted and spoke clearly and loudly. The Sovereign State of Florida wants Trump in office.

[Teach]

xtb: "A pure democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

How's that different from what goes on today? There are standards, and then there are double-standards!

[boxcar]

I'd be curious to know how many world democracies use an electoral college system, or something akin to it.

Probably no one. That would make us unique. The Founders never wanted a pure democracy. That would make it far too easy for evil to grow and flourish. As it is, corruption is already having a field day in the current system!

[boxcar]

xtb: "A pure democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

How's that different from what goes on today? There are standards, and then there are double-standards!

The current system helps to curtail it a bit. But eventually, this country will fall from power and influence in this world.

[davew]

Harsher penalties are needed for voter fraud before changing current system.

On a side note, there are close to 40 electoral voters that are contemplating using their vote to vote for someone else. Not necessarily the other candidate, but someone else completely.

If no candidate gets the needed electoral votes, it goes to Congress who could put in anyone as our next president - who would be in for quite a time because close to half of the citizens could revolt.

[xtb]

xtb: "A pure democracy is 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner."

How's that different from what goes on today? There are standards, and then there are double-standards!

This thread was about the electoral college and our presidential elections, that is what I was referring to.

[boxcar]

Harsher penalties are needed for voter fraud before changing current system.

On a side note, there are close to 40 electoral voters that are contemplating using their vote to vote for someone else. Not necessarily the other candidate, but someone else completely.

If no candidate gets the needed electoral votes, it goes to Congress who could put in anyone as our next president - who would be in for quite a time because close to half of the citizens could revolt.

Harsher penalties and stiffer voting control laws. In this day and age, there is 0 reason for anyone to not have, at minimum, a state-issued I.D.. Does anyone here think for a moment that all these "poor minorities" who are collecting welfare benefits are doing that without a stitch of proof of who they are?

[Saratoga_Mike]

Harsher penalties and stiffer voting control laws. In this day and age, there is 0 reason for anyone to not have, at minimum, a state-issued I.D.. Does anyone here think for a moment that all these "poor minorities" who are collecting welfare benefits are doing that without a stitch of proof of who they are?

I strongly support voter-ID laws. But strike "minorities" and replace with "people," as millions of whites collect social-welfare benefits, too.

[Light]

Whats amazing to me is the stupidity of the Democratic party not implementing some form of change towards the electoral process despite their party losing twice in the last 16 years (Gore/Clinton) while winning the popular vote. How many more times do they have to get screwed before they wake up.

[davew]

I strongly support voter-ID laws. But strike "minorities" and replace with "people," as millions of whites collect social-welfare benefits, too.


They are just repeating the Democrat Party argument.

[classhandicapper]

No matter how you ultimately choose the winner, when an election is close, close to 50% of the people will be unhappy.

That's why crazy as it seems to our brainwashed masses, the founders had a great idea when they thought the Federal government should be small and most things should be left up to the states.

That way, no matter who wins the presidency, since his power would be so limited, it would not have a profound impact on your life.

On the flip side, if "your guy" loses at the state level and a lot of laws are passed that you despise, it's fairly easy to move to a neighboring state that better reflects your values. Right now, millions of people in CA are miserable, but they wouldn't be if they were more in control of their own destiny at the state level.

The argument against this kind of thing is always "suppose some state makes some really horrific laws?"

First, it would still possible to change the constitution via amendment to prevent that. We just wouldn't do it willy nilly via some liberal activist judges like we have been doing. Second, if we couldn't pass an amendment, that means there isn't broad agreement. So maybe you aren't even right. But even in that case, you could still move.

The reason we don't go down this sensible road is that the LEFT WANTS TO DICTATE AND MANDATE on everyone else.

Well guess what, when you lose the presidency, Senate, House, a lot of Governors' houses, and soon the Supreme Court, you quickly learn that being dictated to sucks.

[boxcar]

I strongly support voter-ID laws. But strike "minorities" and replace with "people," as millions of whites collect social-welfare benefits, too.

To a Democrat the term "people" is far too vague. It doesn't say enough about the identities of the poor, downtrodden people of color that would somehow be disenfranchised if they were made to show up at the polls with a valid I.D.

[davew]

No matter how you ultimately choose the winner, when an election is close, close to 50% of the people will be unhappy.

That's why crazy as it seems to our brainwashed masses, the founders had a great idea when they thought the Federal government should be small and most things should be left up to the states.

That way, no matter who wins the presidency, since his power would be so limited, it would not have a profound impact on your life.

On the flip side, if "your guy" loses at the state level and a lot of laws are passed that you despise, it's fairly easy to move to a neighboring state that better reflects your values. Right now, millions of people in CA are miserable, but they wouldn't be if they were more in control of their own destiny at the state level.

The argument against this kind of thing is always "suppose some state makes some really horrific laws?"

First, it would still possible to change the constitution via amendment to prevent that. We just wouldn't do it willy nilly via some liberal activist judges like we have been doing. Second, if we couldn't pass an amendment, that means there isn't broad agreement. So maybe you aren't even right. But even in that case, you could still move.

The reason we don't go down this sensible road is that the LEFT WANTS TO DICTATE AND MANDATE on everyone else.

Well guess what, when you lose the presidency, Senate, House, a lot of Governors' houses, and soon the Supreme Court, you quickly learn that being dictated to sucks.

I suspect you do not know how many residents of Colorado and Washington feel they have been Californicated on enough.

[chadk66]

it would be very little or no difference than eliminating the electoral college. the founders had good reason not to do this. you would still have a few major cities controlling elections.

[Actor]

The "Founding Fathers" were afraid of "splinter" parties causing every election to be decided by the House (President) and Senate (Vice-President). Basically, our early leaders didn't trust the average citizen. They didn't feel they were qualified to make sound judgments.The intent of the "Founding Fathers" was that the electoral college be a nominating body, with each elector pledged to no one, and that the House/Senate would then elect the President/Vice-President from the nominees. They mistakenly thought that the case of a single President/Vice-President team getting a majority of electoral votes would be rare.

At least that's what I was taught in high school.

[ElKabong]

I mention Lodge-Gossett because it is a step, a step toward a popular vote. True democracy. Times have changed. People are better educated. It took about 125 years to let the people decide who their U.S. Senators were (previously done by state legislatures).

Screw the constitution and all the vision of our forefathers. Let's just go two outta three on rock, paper, scissors. The loser gets a consolation trophy

[JustRalph]

Whats amazing to me is the stupidity of the Democratic party not implementing some form of change towards the electoral process despite their party losing twice in the last 16 years (Gore/Clinton) while winning the popular vote. How many more times do they have to get screwed before they wake up.

They have been in no position to make that change. Neither have the Repubs for that matter.

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/constitution

[JustRalph]

Wow! A member of the Teachers union who voted for Hillary wants to 2nd guess the founders who have proven to be prescient beyond the pale.

The founders had observed tyranny in several forms and found a way to mitigate it through establishment of the greatest country on earth. They codified their genius and it has flourished.

After being rejected and blindsided by their own blue wall the one force that has hurt this country more than anything since WWII, demand irrationally and with extreme malice a change in the rules.

Bullshit!

[EasyGoer89]

Because the crazy theory then was that it might work in the reverse with Trump managing to compete for the popular win but getting destroyed in the election.

I don't really understand why if you are going to change the mechanism you would opt for a weird compromise like Lodge-Gossett rather than just moving to a popular vote. Other than retaining the obscure threat that the will of the people may not mean anything, I can't quite imagine what upside another convoluted system would have over that which the people pining for change claim to actually want, a simple popular vote tally.

This is totally right, i heard that too, people thought the vote count might go to Trump due to 'rally size' and other factors.....a factor that left isn't considering is that if this was a popular vote contest, Calif would be 'revisited' and millions of illegal votes would be stricken, Trump won so he didn't have to go that route, Calif is really the state that has 'decided' who won the popular vote....im sure plenty of trump supporters who lived in calif would have went out and voted had they known popular vote mattered, they stayed home because their vote was meaningless.

[NJ Stinks]

Wow! A member of the Teachers union who voted for Hillary wants to 2nd guess the founders who have proven to be prescient beyond the pale.

The founders had observed tyranny in several forms and found a way to mitigate it through establishment of the greatest country on earth. They codified their genius and it has flourished.

After being rejected and blindsided by their own blue wall the one force that has hurt this country more than anything since WWII, demand irrationally and with extreme malice a change in the rules.

Bullshit!

You got the bullshit part right. Here is the truth about "the greatest country on earth". Between the Electoral College and gerrymandering, my vote is worthless.

And it's got no shot at becoming valuable again.

Because the people in states like Wyoming have more power than they ever deserved and they aren't going to vote to give it back.


Surely the minimum standard to being the "greatest country on earth" must be citizens who take tremendous pride in casting their vote. No?

[EasyGoer89]

You got the bullshit part right. Here is the truth about "the greatest country on earth". Between the Electoral College and gerrymandering, my vote is worthless.

And it's got no shot at becoming valuable again.

Because the people in states like Wyoming have more power than they ever deserved and they aren't going to vote to give it back.


Surely the minimum standard to being the "greatest country on earth" must be citizens who take tremendous pride in casting their vote. No?

President of the USA vs President of California.

Hillary had an election rigged in her favor, she had a free 55 electorals from Calif to start, she had powerful establishment Republicans in her corner, she had CNN, NY Times and other global giants in her corner, she had the entire base of Hollywood elite in her corner, Katy Perry and her 100 million Twitter followers were on board, she had Soros money paying operatives to conduct violence at Trump rallies, she had CNN and others rigging the debates and the list goes on and on and on.

[incoming]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/detroit-machines-registered-more-votes-than-voters-report/ar-AAlxCLo?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp Voter ID would level the playing field!!!! :bang: :bang: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[JustRalph]

You got the bullshit part right. Here is the truth about "the greatest country on earth". Between the Electoral College and gerrymandering, my vote is worthless.

And it's got no shot at becoming valuable again.

Because the people in states like Wyoming have more power than they ever deserved and they aren't going to vote to give it back.


Surely the minimum standard to being the "greatest country on earth" must be citizens who take tremendous pride in casting their vote. No?

We disagree on one key issue. It could become valuable again. There is nothing preventing the political winds from changing. That's the beauty of the system. It worked perfectly in this instance.

[PaceAdvantage]

You got the bullshit part right. Here is the truth about "the greatest country on earth". Between the Electoral College and gerrymandering, my vote is worthless.

And it's got no shot at becoming valuable again.

Because the people in states like Wyoming have more power than they ever deserved and they aren't going to vote to give it back.


Surely the minimum standard to being the "greatest country on earth" must be citizens who take tremendous pride in casting their vote. No?Actually, MY vote is worthless, being I've voted in NY all my life, and always for a Republican president. NEVER has my vote counted yet... :lol:

[EasyGoer89]

Actually, MY vote is worthless, being I've voted in NY all my life, and always for a Republican president. NEVER has my vote counted yet... :lol:

It's going to matter in 4 years, NY will be 'in play' due to Trumps success.

[Secondbest]

Does anyone know what the electoral vote would be if this amendment was in effect now?

[Clocker]

Because the people in states like Wyoming have more power than they ever deserved and they aren't going to vote to give it back.


Surely the minimum standard to being the "greatest country on earth" must be citizens who take tremendous pride in casting their vote. No?

People do take pride in casting their votes as citizens of their state. And I can assure you that most citizens of Wyoming are eternally grateful that they are not citizens of CA or NY. Or even NJ. :eek:

The State of Wyoming has as much power as it deserves, because this country was founded as a republican union of states, not as a democracy of the people. That may be why they called it the United States of America and not the Peoples Democratic Republic of America.

And despite all the efforts of the "progressives" to eliminate the states as the intermediaries between the people and the federal government, this election proves that there is still enough support for the founding principles to keep the country from degenerating into yet another European style socialist democracy.

At the deciding margin, this election was not for Trump, it was against the direction the country was moving under the Obama administration, with inevitable acceleration under Hillary Clinton, toward a "Peoples Republic".

[Clocker]

As a former history and government teacher, I thought this Lodge-Gossett amendment – I’ll spell it out in a moment – had merit. My own opinion is that the current winner-take-all, state-level outcome is out of date, an anachronism. .

Each state can determine its own outcome without a constitutional amendment. Nebraska has 5 electoral votes and 3 congressional districts. The winner of the state-wide over-all vote gets 2 of those votes, the winner of the popular vote within each of the 3 congressional district gets one vote.

Why shouldn't each state decide for itself?

[Secondbest]

Since the OP didn't provide an answer to my question I'm guessing President- elect Trump would Still be President -elect Trump.