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.
No, a few states wouldn't be controlling the country, the people would. What's wrong with that?
Plenty. You Libs tend to congregate with one another in a circle jerk of immoral, anti-Christian, pro-communist quacks singing Kumbayah at the destruction of this once-great country. That's what's wrong with it.
That is a great idea and gets around the almost impossible process of amending the Constitution since some states would never agree to go along.
If too many elections produce an outcome like Bush v. Gore it will mean the end of our republic. The people will not continue to put up with a situation in which the candidate that receives the highest amount of nationwide popular votes is not allowed to be our President. I find the Electoral College to be a massive scam specifically designed to disenfranchise large numbers of voters.
One person, one vote is the only fair way to elect our leaders.
Then you are wrong. The Electoral College is not a scam.
National Popular Vote is a scam.
Why? Because changes to how we select the President, a procedure outlined in the Constitution, should be addressed by Constitutional amendment, not by political gamesmanship.
If I lived in Massachusetts, went to the poll, voted with the majority of citizens of Massachusetts for a candidate, and then ALL my states' electors went to a different candidate, then I'd feel disenfranchised.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,074,986 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge
It would be bad for the country.
Why do we have elections? What is the point? It's not just to elect someone into office. Aren't elections about the people getting a say in what their government does? About getting to know a candidate, qualifying that candidate, but also about telling that candidate what the people want?
The election process is a conversation.
If it were just about a candidate telling us what he's going to do, then that could just be printed on the election ballot, and people could check the name and be done with it.
The conversation is between the candidates and the voters. It's a chance for candidates to evolve as they hear and consider what the voters have to say.
Democracies are inherently flawed. They give a tremendous advantage to urban voters, and render rural voters irrelevant on virtually every issue. Democracies are just about numbers, and urban areas have the numbers, rural areas don't.
The National Popular Vote is about eliminating the electoral college by rendering it irrelevant, and it exacerbates the problem that rural voters have with being heard. Our system of government is about giving people a voice. The National Popular Vote silences the rural voice, and that is to the detriment of all of us as a nation.
D.C. pretty much hit the nail right on the head.
Illinois is just one of many prime examples of this theory in practice.
Illinois is controlled by Chicago...most Il residents south of I-80 and east of state highway 72 wish that Chicago would fall off into Lake Michigan and take their crooked politicians and stupid laws with it.
I live 20 minutes north of the KY line and about about 30 minutes equally from MO and IN...residents around here are having to live with the same Nazi like gun laws,deal with the same ignorant politicians etc as a place that is as different from here as night and day,but since it is a popular vote,we lose down here regardless of the will of the majority in this area.
Because the winner-take-all method has been used in most states for so long, most Americans have come to believe (falsely) that this electoral procedure is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, and that altering it is an affront to our Founding Fathers. They view any move by the states to switch their method of awarding electors as a way of circumventing the Founders’ intent. However, in actuality, the winner-take-all rule currently employed in 48 states and the District of Columbia, was not in fact instituted or even conceived by the Founding Fathers. In fact, only three of the states employed this electoral method in the nation’s inaugural election of 1789. States began to shift to this system not out of any reverence for the Founding Fathers, but to ensure that the majority party in a particular state would have an advantage over rival parties. Accordingly, the driving force behind adoption of the present electoral system was partisan politics, not part of a grand design of governance presented by the Founders. Not surprisingly, it was all too familiar partisan parochial politics that effectuated this method of selecting presidential electors.
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.
