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.
I would prefer to go by popular vote. Many times my vote never even counts since I'm located in a blue state. What's the point for Republicans to show up to vote in Ny or Cali, and why would Democrats even bother in red states? This gives everyone a voice IMO.
No, it does not give everyone a voice. Only those who live in the most populated cities would control who became President. Candidates would only need to campaign in New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston, Philadelphia, Phoenix, San Antonio, San Diego, and Dallas. As everyone knows, all major cities are solid blue. This is nothing more than just a shallow misguided attempt by Democrats to control who becomes President.
States have been giving up their Constitutional power to determine the President of the United States. The National Popular Vote movement has several states signed on, which would cause the state's electors to have to vote according to who garners the most votes nationally, regardless of whether that reflects the preference of the state's voters.
The National Popular Vote movement was conceived as a way to neuter the electoral college without having to abolish it by Amendment.
I didn't know that Obama had suggested the National Popular Vote as he did with his breech of the Constitution last Friday in giving executive amnesty to illegals. Just joking, but what you have said comes from people who think they can amend the Constitution without formal amendment. When we arrive at that stage we will no longer need the document that has worked so well.
I am pretty sure that counting 13 states that won't approve that amendment would be pretty easy for anyone who doesn't want to see it happen. Wyoming, Montana, two Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas just for starters. The day that we drop the Electoral College, for any reason, will be the day that we approve secession of the interior states.
I would prefer to go by popular vote. Many times my vote never even counts since I'm located in a blue state. What's the point for Republicans to show up to vote in Ny or Cali, and why would Democrats even bother in red states? This gives everyone a voice IMO.
So you prefer Republican candidates. Do you understand that urban centers tend to prefer Democratic candidates? Take a look at the last national election by county. Note that the urban areas of America were predominantly blue. That's the numbers game. That's why Democrats push for National Popular Vote. Because it creates an electoral advantage for Democrats.
The electoral college was put in to placate the Southern States, because at that time they had much smaller population bases than the Northern States. That is no longer the case.
Right now, most of the 'small' States can be completely ignored, because they aren't battleground States.
My plan would actually increase the importance of all the 40 non battleground States, regardless of their size. Many of these 40 States voted overwhelmingly Republican in 2008.
I hate to do this to you but the reason the Electoral College was instituted by the Framers had to do with the distances between the northern states and the southern states. They reasoned that people in New Hampshire may not know anybody from Georgia, and vice versa. To make it more likely that people could be known they reasoned that allowing fewer people to cast the ballot would get more votes for not well known names. Of course, they didn't have even regional newspapers, back then, no radio or tv, no internet as we do today. The distances were really great in that horses or floating boats were the main sources of travel.
We have the Electoral College as a part of our Constitution and the less populated states aren't about to give up the 3 automatic votes they have. Your dream sounds very good to people in the large cities but not at all good to those of us in less populated areas.
I think you may see that the 3/5 compromise was put in to placate the southern states much more than the electoral college.
I didn't know that Obama had suggested the National Popular Vote as he did with his breech of the Constitution last Friday in giving executive amnesty to illegals. Just joking, but what you have said comes from people who think they can amend the Constitution without formal amendment. When we arrive at that stage we will no longer need the document that has worked so well.
I am pretty sure that counting 13 states that won't approve that amendment would be pretty easy for anyone who doesn't want to see it happen. Wyoming, Montana, two Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas just for starters. The day that we drop the Electoral College, for any reason, will be the day that we approve secession of the interior states.
There is no need for an amendment for States to use the national popular vote as a means to determine their Electorate. They already have that constitutional authority. According to Article II, Section 1, Clause 2 of the US Constitution "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..."
Which means that the State legislatures can literally choose an means they want to determine their Electorate. If they want to use the national popular vote, they can. If they want to flip a coin, they can, and it would be perfectly constitutional.
I think using the national popular vote is a stupid idea, particularly if those States that use this method allow their own citizens to vote, but it is definitely within the constitutional authority of the State legislature to choose their Electorate in that manner, if they wish.
Take a look at some round numbers. Stay with me. It's all going to be worth it.
The percentage of undecided or truly independent voters in the US is around 20%. This is a moving target, but that's a good round average.
So, of the 80% that aren't undecided, we have 40% who are going to vote for Obama no matter what, and 40% who are going to vote Romney no matter what. (again, round numbers)
I read somewhere that 10 States are currently considered swing, or battleground States.
130 million citizens voted in the last Presidential election.
So, now some quick math.
Swing States are 10/50 = 20% of the Country.
130 million votes x 20% = 26 million total swing State voters
26 million x .20 true undecided voters = 5.2 million voters.
I know I'm playing a little fast and loose with the numbers, but my point is that it doesn't seem right that our candidates are about to spend Billions all to win the hearts and minds of 5.2 million undecided voters in the 10 battleground States. We're a Country with 310 million people in it, and 1.7% of those people are going to decide the election.
Now, if we get rid of the electoral college, all of the sudden, the entire Country is back in play. Then, every vote counts again. Overnight, it becomes a National election again.
Right now, with the electoral college, the Dems can take California and New York for granted, and the Repubs aren't going to waste any money campaigning in those States. Vise versa for Texas and pretty much the entire midwest. Red all the way. No Dem is going to waste money campaigning in those States.
Without the electoral college, all of the sudden, Romney can campaign in Cali because even if he only moves the actual vote total from 60/40, to 55/45, he would still get credit for those extra 5% of the vote, even though he still lost the majority in California.
I understand that the founding fathers wanted to give States rights some extra weight, so that's why we ended up with the College in the first place, but in today's America, it seems to me that what is even more important than States rights, is the rights of people in all 50 States to have their own individual vote actually count.
Small states prefer the electoral college because it gives them more power and influence then their size garners. Yes, delegates are separated proportionally, but since there is a limited number, the percentages favor smaller state populations.
Most Republicans like the electoral college because their "base" is in small population states. Places where you don't feel the movement of the markets and food prices like everyone else, or in places where religious dogma helps people determine whom they'd like to vote for.
I think that we should follow the popular vote. Seems to me if we are truly, one country, then one person should equal one vote.
I didn't know that Obama had suggested the National Popular Vote as he did with his breech of the Constitution last Friday in giving executive amnesty to illegals. Just joking, but what you have said comes from people who think they can amend the Constitution without formal amendment. When we arrive at that stage we will no longer need the document that has worked so well.
I am pretty sure that counting 13 states that won't approve that amendment would be pretty easy for anyone who doesn't want to see it happen. Wyoming, Montana, two Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas just for starters. The day that we drop the Electoral College, for any reason, will be the day that we approve secession of the interior states.
The National Popular Vote doesn't need every state to sign on in order to render the electoral college meaningless. It states in its language, it goes into effect when the states that have signed on have an electoral advantage. That's why it's not focusing its efforts on Wyoming, Montana, the Dakotas, Nebraska, or Kansas. It's focusing on states with more electoral votes.
It's already close to halfway there. VT, MD, WA, IL, NJ, DC, MA, CA, HI have all made it law. It's passed both houses and is in the governor's hands in CO, and RI. And it's passed at least one house in the state legislatures of OR, NV, NM, AR, NC, CT, DE, MI, NY, ME.
Then it will be up to states like Wyoming or Montana to challenge the legality of the law. Which is tough because the state legislatures per the Constitution have sole discretion about how to assign their electors. The only basis for challenge is that the idea was originally about going around the electoral college.
Small states prefer the electoral college because it gives them more power and influence then their size garners. Yes, delegates are separated proportionally, but since there is a limited number, the percentages favor smaller state populations.
Most Republicans like the electoral college because their "base" is in small population states. Places where you don't feel the movement of the markets and food prices like everyone else, or in places where religious dogma helps people determine whom they'd like to vote for.
I think that we should follow the popular vote. Seems to me if we are truly, one country, then one person should equal one vote.
I'm not a Republican at all, and I like the electoral college because I see it as an incentive to get candidates to involve non-urban Americans in the conversation about where this country should be headed. Even when I lived in urban America, I was of the opinion that the voices of non-urban Americans should be heard. National Popular Vote means that the concerns of non-urban Americans won't be heard. That strikes me as unDemocratic.
So you prefer Republican candidates. Do you understand that urban centers tend to prefer Democratic candidates? Take a look at the last national election by county. Note that the urban areas of America were predominantly blue. That's the numbers game. That's why Democrats push for National Popular Vote. Because it creates an electoral advantage for Democrats.
Bingo. Even in the bluest of blue States, the sparsely populated rural counties tend to be red, and even in the most solid of all the red States, their major cities are typically blue.
Because 48 of the 50 States are "winner take all" the Electoral College tends to balance out the urban and rural populations. Particularly where the population of that State is split between urban and rural. When rural populations out number the major urban areas, that State is typically red. When urban populations out number the rural areas, that State is typically blue.
You just dashed their dreams of their dictator Obama with that post.
All those little population states like Alaska, ND, SD, Montana, and Wyo that now have 3 electoral votes each over-represent their population since in the Electoral college they get the number of House Members plus 2 Senators. These states have historically gone Republican. Via straight population, these states would have less influence.
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.
