For John, BLUF: Odds are we won't change the Electoral College. Nothing to see here; just move along.
A Mr Mark Weston, writing for Time Magazine, proposes that if at some future date we again have someone win the Electoral College but not the popular vote, those who voted for the loser should stop paying their taxes.♠
The approximately 65 million Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton should pledge that in the future if a Republican wins the presidency with fewer votes than a Democrat for the third time in our era, we won’t pay taxes to the federal government. No taxation without representation!I wonder why this only flows one way. What if it were a Democrat who won the Electoral College and a Republican who won the popular vote? A whiff of sour grapes on Mr Weston's part, I would think.
But, the issue is “No Taxation Without Representation”.
Sort of like how the majority of counties across the fruited plain would have to kow-tow to the population centers like LA or San Francisco, Chicago, DC or New York City or Boston, if a Democrat won the Presidency.
The real question is how we would reform the system, if we wanted, the People, wanted to do it.
Should we start first with the US Senate, wherein each state, regardless of population, gets two members. Alaska, with 738,432 people (2015 estimate), gets two, as does California, with 39,144,818. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts population, estimated in 2015, was 6,794,422. The Mass population is nine times that of Alaska, while California's is 53 times the size.
Having disposed of the US Senate, we now face the Electoral College. So we abolish it, but what replaces it? Will it be first past the poll or will it be a runoff. If first past the poll, a plurality win, then it isn't any better than the Electoral College Mr Weston decries.
Thus we are left with some form of run-off electoral system, like they have in France. By reducing the number of people running to two, you get the winner as having a majority. This solves Mr Weston's problem, but not that of those who worry about fraud in voting. To satisfy them I would suggest that the winner of the Presidential Election would need 50.5 percent of the vote, thus ensuring no fraud is present.♥
Or, we could stick with what we have.
Hat tip to the InstaPundit.
Regards — Cliff
♠ Actually, not playing taxes might help force the Federal Government to better live within its means.
♥ I wouldn't go as far as the Democratic Party in its conventions up to 1932, where two-thirds was required for nomination.