Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You are voting in a national election among national candidates who run national campaigns for a national office.<<SNIP>>
Keep believing that if you want to, but the reality is that your vote only counts in your state-wide election, and nobody else's vote from any other state counts in your election.
It baffles me as to just how uneducated a lot of people in this country are when it comes to our government and the Constitution. There was a reason for the "framers" of the Constitution to even come up with the idea of the "electoral" system and the importance it plays in our Republican form of government. This system was not instituted haphazardly, the debate on this went on for over a month. It's takes into account the importance of each State and the people of their respective State.
The NPV discounts your vote as a person in your State, your State (if it has agreed to the NPV compact) will now decide its electors not based on your vote, but based on the vote of other states. So you will have States like California, Florida, Texas and New York deciding on how your State will vote. This is what the framers of the Constitution didn't want, this is why we have the electoral process we have today. Why, because the STATES and the People of those States matter.
If the States didn't matter, why would they assign 2 senatorial votes even if the state had only one representative vote in the electoral process. Why is it, that in case of a tie in the electoral vote, that the House decides but it is only limited to 1 vote "per State". That is because the framers knew how important the States were when it come to the operation of the Union.
Sigh.....are you even able to conceive of the notion that some law becomes outdated after 217 years? Or, are you of the opinion that everything they wrote and did is perfect and unchangeable? What the framers did made sense in a country with little communication and transportation options that predated the steam train. Also, it probably made sense in a country with a high percentage of illiterate people. Fast forward to 2016 and it no longer makes sense because better options are available that better reflect the will of the citizenry.
States truly don't matter because states aren't living breathing creatures with a brain or feelings. All the electoral college does is give a person in some states more of a vote than people in other states. In effect, its antithetical to the major principle in elections which is the person with the most votes wins.
Until you and some other people can begin to conceive the notion that the Constitution is simply the product of something smart men wrote and parts of it can become outdated like any other law you aren't going to say anything that's very relevant. A wooden plow works. It doesn't mean that any intelligent farmer would replace his tractor with one.
There is no reason states cannot have two senators and why we cannot make the presidential race an election based on popular votes. Two different things are at stake here.
Keep believing that if you want to, but the reality is that your vote only counts in your state-wide election, and nobody else's vote from any other state counts in your election.
Here's something you might want to read, yes it's a lot of reading but you just might educated yourself...
It's been cited before and it's a lot of rubbish. The Connecticut Compromise was a desperate last ditch effort to find some way for the draft Constitution to be approved and passed out of the convention for submission back to the Congress. The whole Philadelphia undertaking would have been at serious risk without it. And the controversy was about the nature of the Senate, not about the Electors. That was simply collateral damage. The EC today meanwhile is an arcane and anti-democratic institution that is entirely out of touch with the times. It needs to be neutered.
Keep believing that if you want to, but the reality is that your vote only counts in your state-wide election, and nobody else's vote from any other state counts in your election.
Once again, you merely restate the problem. NPV has the solution.
It baffles me as to just how uneducated a lot of people in this country are when it comes to our government and the Constitution. There was a reason for the "framers" of the Constitution to even come up with the idea of the "electoral" system and the importance it plays in our Republican form of government. This system was not instituted haphazardly, the debate on this went on for over a month. It's takes into account the importance of each State and the people of their respective State.
The NPV discounts your vote as a person in your State, your State (if it has agreed to the NPV compact) will now decide its electors not based on your vote, but based on the vote of other states. So you will have States like California, Florida, Texas and New York deciding on how your State will vote. This is what the framers of the Constitution didn't want, this is why we have the electoral process we have today. Why, because the STATES and the People of those States matter.
If the States didn't matter, why would they assign 2 senatorial votes even if the state had only one representative vote in the electoral process. Why is it, that in case of a tie in the electoral vote, that the House decides but it is only limited to 1 vote "per State". That is because the framers knew how important the States were when it come to the operation of the Union.
Nonsense. The framers version of the EC is utterly different than the one we use today. We now have 50 states the majority of which were never sovereign. The orignal electors elected the President. They had no duty to vote for anyone. A set of wise men to pick the President.
And of course the Mormons have a lawyer who disagrees. The RW is quite fond of the EC for the obvious reason. See if you can find an Ivy League Law Review that agrees.
It baffles me as to just how uneducated a lot of people in this country are when it comes to our government and the Constitution. There was a reason for the "framers" of the Constitution to even come up with the idea of the "electoral" system and the importance it plays in our Republican form of government. This system was not instituted haphazardly, the debate on this went on for over a month. It's takes into account the importance of each State and the people of their respective State.
The NPV discounts your vote as a person in your State, your State (if it has agreed to the NPV compact) will now decide its electors not based on your vote, but based on the vote of other states. So you will have States like California, Florida, Texas and New York deciding on how your State will vote. This is what the framers of the Constitution didn't want, this is why we have the electoral process we have today. Why, because the STATES and the People of those States matter.
If the States didn't matter, why would they assign 2 senatorial votes even if the state had only one representative vote in the electoral process. Why is it, that in case of a tie in the electoral vote, that the House decides but it is only limited to 1 vote "per State". That is because the framers knew how important the States were when it come to the operation of the Union.
Sigh.....are you even able to conceive of the notion that some law becomes outdated after 217 years? Or, are you of the opinion that everything they wrote and did is perfect and unchangeable? What the framers did made sense in a country with little communication and transportation options that predated the steam train. Also, it probably made sense in a country with a high percentage of illiterate people. Fast forward to 2016 and it no longer makes sense because better options are available that better reflect the will of the citizenry.
States truly don't matter because states aren't living breathing creatures with a brain or feelings. All the electoral college does is give a person in some states more of a vote than people in other states. In effect, its antithetical to the major principle in elections which is the person with the most votes wins.
Until you and some other people can begin to conceive the notion that the Constitution is simply the product of something smart men wrote and parts of it can become outdated like any other law you aren't going to say anything that's very relevant. A wooden plow works. It doesn't mean that any intelligent farmer would replace his tractor with one.
There is no reason states cannot have two senators and why we cannot make the presidential race an election based on popular votes. Two different things are at stake here.
So you are saying every state is the same as every other state in their culture, needs, COL, whatever?
The states have different peoples, not just considering their numbers. They have different values among the people. This was the reasoning behind the EC and it is still true today.
So you are saying every state is the same as every other state in their culture, needs, COL, whatever?
The states have different peoples, not just considering their numbers. They have different values among the people. This was the reasoning behind the EC and it is still true today.
I'm saying that living in a state with a small population is not a justification for giving a voter from that state more say in electing the president than if he/she were from a state with a large population.
A different culture is not a justification for giving a voter more say in an election that another voter. A different cost of living is certainly no justification for one voter having power than another.
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee all of us the "equal protection of the law". Giving a voter in some states more say over determining the outcome of an election than a voter in another state violates this principle.
Ultimately, those who support the EC are saying that a small group of people should be able to rule over a larger group. That essentially says they don't believe in elections at all.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
