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.
When the U.S. Constitution was written in 1787, Article II, Section 1 stated the following:
Quote:
Quote:
Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
What and who are electors? According to the debate at the Constitutional Convention regarding this matter, electors were supposed to be independent and “wise men” whose job was to “nominate” the best candidates for president. Notice that the word “nominate,” not “elect,” was used. The job of the electors in each state was to submit names of candidates for president. The candidate selection was to be achieved by counting the nominations. Article II clearly states that electors shall be appointed by the states, as directed by their respective legislatures. However, the method of appointing was at the sole discretion and prerogative of the legislature of the respective states. If a state wished to have its legislature simply pick the electors, it could do so, or it could have the voters of the state participate in the election of these individuals. Whatever the decision, one thing was clear. It was the states, not the federal government, and certainly not political parties, who would make the decision. The Founders were intent on maintaining the principle of federalism.
the national popular vote scheme, is a scheme from soros and the marxists/fascists
the 501(c) organization National Popular Vote Inc., a George Soros funded who’s who of the progressive left. ...billionaire George Soros funds and supports the movement via his myriad 502(c) outfits, such as the Progressive States Network and Common Cause.
With the recent addition of California to the list, nine states have now signed into law a bill that awards all of the state’s electoral college votes to the winner of the “national” popular vote for president.
These nine states have provided this dangerous and unconstitutional movement 132 of the 270 electoral votes required to win the presidency. Once this group has 270 electoral votes, the electoral college will be rendered moot, the constitution will be undermined and the U.S. President will be elected based on popular vote.
Why is electing a president by national popular vote a bad idea?
Our founding fathers understood that pure Democracy (majority/mob rules) can lead to the curtailing or elimination of liberty for the minority or stated another way; pure Democracy leads to tyranny of the majority. 50%+1 of the population can impose their will on the remaining 50%-1 of the population. History has shown us that this can lead to, among other things, dictatorships, totalitarianism, discrimination and slavery.
Under a National Popular Vote, 100% of the citizens in a state could vote for candidate A and all of the state’s electoral college votes go to candidate B, rending small states powerless and the will of the people in the state irrelevant.
It’s a ridiculous idea dreamed up by George Soros Stooges in an attempt to circumvent the constitution and ensure a progressive will always control the administrative branch.
Yes, we get it, you believe the vast majority of Americans are ignorant morons and not trustworthy when it comes to voting, thing is many may think exactly the same of you.
If you don't believe me, just read the posts from your "running mates". that confirm my statements.
Also, the strawman your created re: Vast Majority is just another of a seemingly endless supply of straw seemingly at you disposal. I would say a significant majority fit in that classification. The Obama election pretty much proves that assertion.
I agree, it long overdue. EVERY other government offical is elected by the People, it is ridiculous for the President to be any different.
Actually, in light of our Constitution, it's not ridiculous. Originally, Senators weren't elected by the people either. And in a country as massive as ours, it's important to understand that the majority don't always have to control the political agenda, and shouldn't always control the political agenda. There are good reasons why minority groups are protected by our Constitution, because democracies, as exemplified by popular vote, are plagued by a tendency to ignore and abuse the minorities in the population. The protections we provide for minorities are only strong when the majority of people recognize the value of those protections. But there are always voices that are loud and persuasive about why this group or that one doesn't merit protection. There are people who don't think white supremacists merit protection. There's a large and vocal movement against Muslims.
Elections aren't just about who wins. If we short-change the conversation between voters and those running for office, if we marginalize parts of the population, then no one wins. We all lose, because a representative government that represents the entire population is lost. National popular vote is about urban areas dominating the conversation. And to a degree that's already true, but the National popular vote ensures even greater domination by urban voters, so that the rural voters are effectively irrelevant to the conversation. Elections are about the conversation. Elections are extended opportunities for voters to tell candidates about the issues important to voters, about the direction they want government to take. Who gets elected isn't as important as the conversation before people cast their votes.
My favorite line in this article, "States shouldn't be electing presidents. Citizens should be."
Indeed.
ok great. I will go along with this scheme as long as the people that are voting are not receiving any federal or state paycheck, nor federal or state welfare, nor federal or state loans.
outside of that, i could go along with a national election like that.
after all, you really cant trust someone who will just vote for someone who will get them a better check to do the right thing.
The right to vote, as with all rights, is defined by law. As far as voting rights go, the United States is not a true democracy. U.S. Const., Art. IV, Sec. 4. It is a federal constitutional republic, which is a representative form of government, albeit there is now provision for initiatives to be enacted into law directly by public referendum (e.g., the recent initiative in California for an anti-gay marriage amendment to the State constitution). Likewise, under the Constitution, there is no right to vote directly for a presidential candidate, but for "electors" for the President of the United States. U.S. Const., Art. II, Sec. 1; Bush v. Gore, 531 U.S. 98 (2000).
Actually, in light of our Constitution, it's not ridiculous. Originally, Senators weren't elected by the people either. And in a country as massive as ours, it's important to understand that the majority don't always have to control the political agenda, and shouldn't always control the political agenda. There are good reasons why minority groups are protected by our Constitution, because democracies, as exemplified by popular vote, are plagued by a tendency to ignore and abuse the minorities in the population. The protections we provide for minorities are only strong when the majority of people recognize the value of those protections. But there are always voices that are loud and persuasive about why this group or that one doesn't merit protection. There are people who don't think white supremacists merit protection. There's a large and vocal movement against Muslims.
Elections aren't just about who wins. If we short-change the conversation between voters and those running for office, if we marginalize parts of the population, then no one wins. We all lose, because a representative government that represents the entire population is lost. National popular vote is about urban areas dominating the conversation. And to a degree that's already true, but the National popular vote ensures even greater domination by urban voters, so that the rural voters are effectively irrelevant to the conversation. Elections are about the conversation. Elections are extended opportunities for voters to tell candidates about the issues important to voters, about the direction they want government to take. Who gets elected isn't as important as the conversation before people cast their votes.
Sorry but no amount of "justification" or "excuses" will change the fact that there simply is no valid reason that we do not elect the President just like we elect every other elected official in the Nation. Waaaay past time to chage that. If you do not like the idea of living with the will of the people then I would suggest moving to some other country that ignores your vote, for your own good, of-course
ok great. I will go along with this scheme as long as the people that are voting are not receiving any federal or state paycheck, nor federal or state welfare, nor federal or state loans.
outside of that, i could go along with a national election like that.
after all, you really cant trust someone who will just vote for someone who will get them a better check to do the right thing.
Why not only Vets? Since after all they are the only ones that have served the Nation and put their life on the line for it, the rest can go suck an egg.
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.
