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.
They're not made up of 50 individual states with different social and economic interests, beliefs and concerns.
So if that's what you want.... move to France....or Mexico.
Then quit promulgating that a direct vote for president can't be done because the USA is a constitutional republic .
You may want to get out in the world a bit more. Get back to me when you've been in more that 29, like myself. You might understand how the world works better.
Or even visit some more States. Get back to me when you've spent as much time as I have in 45 different ones. You might understand your own country better.
There are a lot of things we don't do here anymore that were at one time commonplace. No reason why we can't evolve to a more equitable system just because it's not how we've always done it. If that were true, blacks would still be slaves and women wouldn't have the vote.
The Constitution was created as a living document. That means it was created with the purpose of being able to adapt and change with the times. If you don't like that our Constitution allows for change, then it's probably you who should move.
Agree. The constitution is able to be changed. And in order to do that it needs to be amended IN THIS MANNER. READ IT.
A majority vote of state delegations at a national convention called by Congress called at the request of the legislatures of at least two-thirds (at present 34) of the states. (This method has never been used.)
All 33 amendment proposals that have been sent to the states for ratification since the establishment of the Constitution have come into being via the Congress. State legislatures have however, at various times, used their power to apply for a national convention in order to pressure Congress into proposing a desired amendment. For example, the movement to amend the Constitution to provide for the direct election of senators began to see such proposals regularly pass the House of Representatives only to die in the Senate from the early 1890s onward. As time went by, more and more state legislatures adopted resolutions demanding that a convention be called, thus pressuring the Senate to finally relent and approve what later became the Seventeenth Amendment for fear that such a convention—if permitted to assemble—might stray to include issues above and beyond just the direct election of senators.
To become an operative part of the Constitution, an amendment, whether proposed by Congress or a national constitutional convention, must be ratified by either:
The legislatures of three-fourths (at present 38) of the states; or
Congress has specified the state legislature ratification method for all but one amendment. The ratifying convention method was used for the Twenty-first Amendment, which became part of the Constitution in 1933.
Since the turn of the 20th century, amendment proposals sent to the states for ratification have generally contained a seven-year ratification deadline, either in the body of the amendment or in the resolving clause of the joint resolution proposing it. The Constitution does not expressly provide for a deadline on the state legislatures' or state ratifying conventions' consideration of proposed amendments. In Dillon v. Gloss (1921), the Supreme Court affirmed that Congress—if it so desires—could provide a deadline for ratification. An amendment with an attached deadline that is not ratified by the required number of states within the set time period is considered inoperative and rendered moot.
An amendment becomes operative as soon as it reaches the three-fourths of the states threshold. Then, once certified by the Archivist of the United States, it officially takes its place as an article of the Constitution.
On Thursday, New Mexico became the 14th state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, joining California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington state and the District of Columbia. The states, which represent a whopping 189 electoral votes, have agreed to shift their voting allocations once the group amasses 270 votes, the threshold needed to decide a presidential election.
Ohio is trying to be #15 and push it to 207 electoral votes.
Just shaking my head... but if that's what they want, oh well. No one seems to be making a large effort to stop it.
The whole idea of making every vote count through a popular election - actually makes your vote less relevant for the less populous states.
For a popular vote - the math says your vote count for 1 out of 130 million people (or however many vote).
Rhode Island had 450,000 vote in the 2016 election with 4 out of 538 actual electoral votes for president.
(1 vote divided by 450,000) x (4 EC votes divided by 538 total EC votes)... then take the reciprocal... their vote effectiveness now is 1 out of 60.5 million votes. They just cut their influence in half by going to a popular vote. Congrats.
---------------------------
For California, about 14 million voted with 55 electoral votes.
(1 vote divided by 14 million) x (55 EC votes divided by 538 total EC votes)... then take the reciprocal... their effective vote now is 1 out of 136,986,301 votes. With a popular vote - their influence will improve slightly.
---------------------------
For New York... 7.5 million voted with 29 electoral votes
(1 vote divided by 7.5 million) x (29 EC votes divided by 538 total EC votes)... then take the reciprocal... their effective vote now is 1 out of 139,082,058. With a popular vote - their influence will improve slightly.
---------------------------
For Wyoming... 255,000 voted with 3 electoral votes.
(1 vote divided by 255,000) x (3 EC votes divided by 538 total EC votes)... then take the reciprocal... their effective vote now is 1 out of 45.7 million. With a popular vote - their influence decrease greatly with a popular vote.
---------------------------
So just by my math... populous states win out with this. They have the majority of influence in the House, since it is based on population. Now you are giving them the presidency as well.
You will be sorry, for more reasons than math...
Mathguy - tell me if what I did with the math makes sense. I'm just asking... if anyone is going to complain about my math - have some substance. Don't just whine about it. We will see how it goes.
Watch how tunes change on a dime, when Trump gains the popular vote...
Why would they? This thing started in 2006 and many red States and swing are considering it, even Florida.
The winner typically wins both the EC and popular vote.
Because I know in at least my state of Vermont it's only a thinly veiled attempt to get more democrats elected as president. Same for most of those deep blue northeastern states on the list. When they watch their own electoral votes getting handed to a candidate who lost their state, people there are going to be pretty unhappy.
There's really no reason to try to derail a system that has worked well for over 200 years. The small states will have no voice in elections if this passes in enough states. Candidates will campaign in the few populous states to ensure a win of the popular vote (which is not reflective of all of the country), they won't even bother addressing the concerns of those in less populous states. Which will more likely simply result in the continued disintegration of this country along rural-urban lines.
Sure, but in this case there is no need to make any changes. The proposal is Constitutional.
I think that's open for debate and the courts will have to address this. It amounts to a pact between some states to alter the electoral process and likely requires congressional consent. The first time an election outcome is impacted by it, it will be a mess that makes the 2000 election look normal.
We are 50 STATES, not one big state. The Founders knew what they were doing.
The founders also knew what they were doing with the 3/5the Compromise, having politicians no matter how corrupt picking Senators for near life appointment, and that white land owners were the only ones with the right to vote. Guess what, those were undone within 150 years.
Watch how tunes change on a dime, when Trump gains the popular vote...
I doubt it. The left has always sought to abolish federalism, they want an all powerful central government.
Sure, they will whine and cry about it when a Republican is president, but they will still keep bestowing ever greater powers to the federal government, and the Executive Branch. The left have a destructive love affair with their dream of a federal system of tyranny.
Imagine the media outrage if someone like Trump won the "official" popular vote, and the liberal states in the compact had to cast their electoral votes for him lol
"Tyranny of the majority" in 1788, John Adams was not alone among the founders in fearing the tyranny of "majority rule" as much as they feared the tyranny of a despot (a ruler who holds absolute power, typically one who exercises it in a cruel or oppressive way.) hence, they founded a constitutional republic as opposed to a pure democracy.
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.
