[Magdalen] Don't know if this is already widely known ...

[Charles Wohlers]

Electors are already pledged to the popular vote in their state, in a majority of states, by state statute. Having them all do things this way wouldn't really change anything, especially since electors almost never vote for someone other than whom they're pledged to. 

The problem is the electoral college itself, which has two problems. First, it gives smaller states a bigger voice, since each state gets 3 votes no matter what. Thus, for example, Vermont gets 3 votes compared to 11 for Massachusetts, even though it has only 1/10 the population of Massachusetts. Second, it's "winner take all" in each state, which limits the campaigning to "battleground states" where the vote will be close. So Hillary can run up a big majority in California (or Trump in Texas), but how big a majority really is irrelevant, since they just have to win the state in order to get all the electoral college votes.

Chad Wohlers
Woodbury, VT USA
chadwohl at satucket.com




-----Original Message----- 
From: Ann Markle 
Sent: Saturday, November 19, 2016 7:40 AM 
To: magdalen at herberthouse.org 
Subject: Re: [Magdalen] Don't know if this is already widely known ... 

Of course, they're "not just some malcontent," as you said, James.  But on
the other hand, they're not disenfranchised, either.  "The least of these"
may have a rougher 4 years than these dynamic women.

I'm very interested in the new law/scheme that's being proposed to pledge
electors to the popular vote -- thus bypassing the Constitution, but still
allowing popular vote to rule.  Of course, if I'm not mistaken, all the
states have to sign on to it -- but they've already got (hmm, not Googling,
so can't remember the exact amount) a fair number of states signed on, both
red and blue.


Ann

The Rev. Ann Markle
Buffalo, NY
ann.markle at aya.yale.edu