U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-25-2013, 02:38 PM
 
Location: Where they serve real ale.
7,249 posts, read 6,651,071 times
Reputation: 3497

Advertisements

With such transparently obvious attempts to subvert our most basic democratic principles the Republicans will only end up hurting themselves and their brand name even more. The obvious solution is to support the national popular vote movement which seven states have already passed legislation into law and it will only take 7-9 more large states to do the same before the national popular vote becomes the defacto law of the land.

How does it work? Well since it would be impossible to get a constitutional amendment passed as Republicans would oppose it as they're so obviously intent on preventing democracy from occurring but the constitution does allow states to award their delegates how ever they like. Thus even without a constitutional amendment states by themselves can agree that no matter how their own population votes they will award their electoral votes to which ever candidate wins the national popular vote. At that point the popular vote becomes the defacto national standard no matter what games Republicans try to play to prevent democracy from occurring.

There are a lot of big high population states which are upset that they get virtually ignored during national elections despite the fact that most of the population lives in such highly urban states. Instead all the attention goes to 6-7 supposed "swing states" who all together have less than 20% of the population. With a national popular vote then EVERY vote actually matters and we'll see candidates spending more time in the other 43 states and both of the parties will have to become much more moderate and responsive to what voters want in the ENTIRE country rather than just being captive to a tiny percentage of the population found in swing states.

Imagine that, having every vote in the entire country matter. It sounds like true democracy to me.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-25-2013, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC (in my mind)
7,946 posts, read 15,016,793 times
Reputation: 4482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Think4Yourself View Post
With such transparently obvious attempts to subvert our most basic democratic principles the Republicans will only end up hurting themselves and their brand name even more. The obvious solution is to support the national popular vote movement which seven states have already passed legislation into law and it will only take 7-9 more large states to do the same before the national popular vote becomes the defacto law of the land.

How does it work? Well since it would be impossible to get a constitutional amendment passed as Republicans would oppose it as they're so obviously intent on preventing democracy from occurring but the constitution does allow states to award their delegates how ever they like. Thus even without a constitutional amendment states by themselves can agree that no matter how their own population votes they will award their electoral votes to which ever candidate wins the national popular vote. At that point the popular vote becomes the defacto national standard no matter what games Republicans try to play to prevent democracy from occurring.

There are a lot of big high population states which are upset that they get virtually ignored during national elections despite the fact that most of the population lives in such highly urban states. Instead all the attention goes to 6-7 supposed "swing states" who all together have less than 20% of the population. With a national popular vote then EVERY vote actually matters and we'll see candidates spending more time in the other 43 states and both of the parties will have to become much more moderate and responsive to what voters want in the ENTIRE country rather than just being captive to a tiny percentage of the population found in swing states.

Imagine that, having every vote in the entire country matter. It sounds like true democracy to me.


As is, there is little initiative for a high turnout unless you are in one of the handful of swing states. I think moving away from the electoral college would also help bring our country together as well. Think about it - red states vs blue states wouldn't really matter anymore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 02:53 PM
 
40,033 posts, read 24,286,353 times
Reputation: 12596
Quote:
Originally Posted by Think4Yourself View Post
With such transparently obvious attempts to subvert our most basic democratic principles the Republicans will only end up hurting themselves and their brand name even more. The obvious solution is to support the national popular vote movement which seven states have already passed legislation into law and it will only take 7-9 more large states to do the same before the national popular vote becomes the defacto law of the land.

How does it work? Well since it would be impossible to get a constitutional amendment passed as Republicans would oppose it as they're so obviously intent on preventing democracy from occurring but the constitution does allow states to award their delegates how ever they like. Thus even without a constitutional amendment states by themselves can agree that no matter how their own population votes they will award their electoral votes to which ever candidate wins the national popular vote. At that point the popular vote becomes the defacto national standard no matter what games Republicans try to play to prevent democracy from occurring.

There are a lot of big high population states which are upset that they get virtually ignored during national elections despite the fact that most of the population lives in such highly urban states. Instead all the attention goes to 6-7 supposed "swing states" who all together have less than 20% of the population. With a national popular vote then EVERY vote actually matters and we'll see candidates spending more time in the other 43 states and both of the parties will have to become much more moderate and responsive to what voters want in the ENTIRE country rather than just being captive to a tiny percentage of the population found in swing states.

Imagine that, having every vote in the entire country matter. It sounds like true democracy to me.
The National Popular Vote is an attempt to subvert the Constitution.

And popular vote will only ensure that the urban centers of this country dominate our federal government even more than they currently do. EVERY vote doesn't matter. In a Democratic election, the ONLY votes that matter are the votes that are cast for the winner. And in democracies, that generally means urban votes. Because urban voters outnumber rural voters. And urban voters vote according to a different set of issues than rural voters.

Those big high population states that are upset that they get ignored, aren't upset about what happens on election day. They aren't getting ignored on that day. They are getting ignored BEFORE election day. Why would they be upset about that? Because they are being denied their voice in the conversation. But they have the dominant voice in the legislature. And many of those smaller, low population states are even more ignored. In the 2008 election, how many commercials did Obama run in California? How many offices did Obama open in California to promote people coming out to vote? Do you know how many commercials he ran in Arkansas? None. Do you know how many Obama offices were opened in Arkansas to distribute promotional material. None. There's ignored, and there's IGNORED.

Democracies favor urban voters. The more urban an area is, the greater the imbalance in a democracy. The electoral college doesn't fix that imbalance. It provides an incentive for candidates to interact with BOTH urban voters and rural voters. Democracies focus on urban voters. The Founding Fathers sought only to diffuse that focus. Because they wanted rural voters to have a voice in their government, too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 02:55 PM
 
40,033 posts, read 24,286,353 times
Reputation: 12596
Quote:
Originally Posted by bchris02 View Post


As is, there is little initiative for a high turnout unless you are in one of the handful of swing states. I think moving away from the electoral college would also help bring our country together as well. Think about it - red states vs blue states wouldn't really matter anymore.
Red states versus blue states is just a meme.

The division has always been rural versus urban.

Getting rid of the electoral college will mean getting rid of that niggling little voice of rural America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 03:25 PM
 
Location: Home, Home on the Front Range
22,795 posts, read 16,211,986 times
Reputation: 12749
Speed bump in Virginia:

""The governor does not support this legislation. He believes Virginia's existing system works just fine as it is. He does not believe there is any need for a change," said spokesman Tucker Martin.

This opposition by McDonnell essentially kills the chances that the Electoral College change would become law in the state."

Virginia governor opposes Electoral College change - First Read
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 03:44 PM
 
Location: Texas
35,122 posts, read 19,208,373 times
Reputation: 20728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gurbie View Post
That is a "democratic" solution- thus, conservatives (who, by definition, are suspicious of the rabble's "right to vote" anyway) will never go for it.
Well, like I posted earlier, there is no good argument against the national popular vote.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 03:45 PM
 
Location: USA
4,793 posts, read 4,226,234 times
Reputation: 2846
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
The National Popular Vote is an attempt to subvert the Constitution.

And popular vote will only ensure that the urban centers of this country dominate our federal government even more than they currently do. EVERY vote doesn't matter. In a Democratic election, the ONLY votes that matter are the votes that are cast for the winner. And in democracies, that generally means urban votes. Because urban voters outnumber rural voters. And urban voters vote according to a different set of issues than rural voters.

Those big high population states that are upset that they get ignored, aren't upset about what happens on election day. They aren't getting ignored on that day. They are getting ignored BEFORE election day. Why would they be upset about that? Because they are being denied their voice in the conversation. But they have the dominant voice in the legislature. And many of those smaller, low population states are even more ignored. In the 2008 election, how many commercials did Obama run in California? How many offices did Obama open in California to promote people coming out to vote? Do you know how many commercials he ran in Arkansas? None. Do you know how many Obama offices were opened in Arkansas to distribute promotional material. None. There's ignored, and there's IGNORED.

Democracies favor urban voters. The more urban an area is, the greater the imbalance in a democracy. The electoral college doesn't fix that imbalance. It provides an incentive for candidates to interact with BOTH urban voters and rural voters. Democracies focus on urban voters. The Founding Fathers sought only to diffuse that focus. Because they wanted rural voters to have a voice in their government, too.
I don't follow anything you're saying here. For one, using a national popular vote would require an amendment to the Constitution, which is something that it permits, and isn't "subverting" anything.

Secondly, every vote absolutely does matter in popular voting. Thirdly, I don't see how you could think that democracies favor urban voters, and your last comment about the Founding Fathers is surely wrong because our country was much more rural than urban in their time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 03:57 PM
 
40,033 posts, read 24,286,353 times
Reputation: 12596
Quote:
Originally Posted by It'sAutomatic View Post
I don't follow anything you're saying here. For one, using a national popular vote would require an amendment to the Constitution, which is something that it permits, and isn't "subverting" anything.

Secondly, every vote absolutely does matter in popular voting. Thirdly, I don't see how you could think that democracies favor urban voters, and your last comment about the Founding Fathers is surely wrong because our country was much more rural than urban in their time.
Wrong, wrong and wrong.

One. The National Popular Vote is a lobbying movement that has already signed on several states. Those states have agreed to select their electors based on whoever wins the national popular vote. The laws doing that take effect when the movement has signed up enough states to control the electoral college. Therefore rendering the electoral college irrelevant. And the people who came up with the idea will tell you directly that they did so to subvert the Constitution, make the electoral college irrelevant without the necessity of an amendment.

Two. No, every vote does not matter. The only votes that matter are the votes cast for the winner. If you voted for Romney during the last election, or if you voted for the Green candidate, or the Libertarian candidate, or you wrote in Mr Magoo, none of those votes matter. The only votes that matter are the votes cast for the winner. Those are the ONLY votes that have any outcome.

Three. Democracies favor urban voters because urban centers have larger populations than rural areas. And democracies are numbers games. The only thing that counts is who has the highest number. And you are mistaken to think that the country was much more rural than urban in their time. The country was more rural in their time than it is now. But not more rural than urban. Boston, Philadelphia, New York, Baltimore were already burgeoning urban areas. The big states, which were the Southern states were more rural than urban, largely by virtue of their size. Size makes a difference.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 04:05 PM
 
Location: Alexandria
472 posts, read 409,902 times
Reputation: 490
Quote:
Originally Posted by TigerLily24 View Post
Speed bump in Virginia:

""The governor does not support this legislation. He believes Virginia's existing system works just fine as it is. He does not believe there is any need for a change," said spokesman Tucker Martin.

This opposition by McDonnell essentially kills the chances that the Electoral College change would become law in the state."

Virginia governor opposes Electoral College change - First Read
He's against it cause it was gaining national news and put the spotlight back on Virginia. Just like the rape bill tsk. Those crazy folks in Richmond will never learn.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-25-2013, 04:06 PM
 
1,970 posts, read 1,484,134 times
Reputation: 969
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ringo1 View Post
Well, if your candidate can't win an election in this economy - better figure out a way to cheat. Repugs are great at that.
No, they are not great at that. They are still learning but they are learning from the best and most experienced, the Democrats.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:42 PM.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top