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.
As a democracy, I say when it comes to voting, each persons vote should count. You should be able to swipe your id so that you are not allowed to vote more than once from anywhere you may be at that time. For instance when I was younger I was in a town other than the one I lived in and I went to vote and they said I had to do it from my town, not theres...ok, well no vote from me then. We are the "United" states, why not count each vote from every person regardless of state and let the majority rule. Thats a true democracy. Thats how we become united.
The founding fathers established the electoral college to prevent the most populace states (then Virginia) of dictating the selection of the president to the other states, thus essentially providing them no input in presidential elections. Like it or not, each state has regional interests that are not shared with every other state. This is why each STATE should have some input into the executive office.
It was the intent of the Founders that both the Senate and the President be basically "elected" by the States, not the people at large. The House of Reps were the peoples reps.
Again, if there was a "popular" vote, there would be no reason for less popular states to be members of the union. Remember that this is the reason for the America Revolution. Those who want to enact tyranny upon thier fellow citizens cannot expect to continue with this practice for long.
Again, if there was a "popular" vote, there would be no reason for less popular states to be members of the union. Remember that this is the reason for the America Revolution. Those who want to enact tyranny upon thier fellow citizens cannot expect to continue with this practice for long.
I think that is the shinny coat on this turd. Sure, it may seem that way. .at least in execution. Yet the reality is far different.
1) the Electoral college is not bound to the states vote. I.e. Florida could go Republican and the electoral college could pick Democrat. It doesn't normally happen, but this is in place for a reason.
2) already the individual "farmer" or " college student" or whomever vote is cast aside regardless. You are talking a big game about giving states power. Yet states today go one way or another. The individual within a state have no ability, in most cases, to influence that election. A professor in Indiana vote is just as disregarded as your "state power", when the state goes Red and his vote is cast to a republican instead of a democrat.
I mean the only way your system would be accurate would be if a states electoral college is allocated by votes (i.e. if 50% democrat and 50% republican for a 10 vote state, than 5 one way and 5 another) . That isn't how its played. 51% in a state, and all 10 go to the winner. I'm surprise you have a straight face and tell us that this procedure gives anyone a voice.
In spite of its stated (honestly or not) original intent, the only functional purpose of the electoral college system is to consolidate control of the presidential election into the hands of a small number of party operatives. We have two political parties which are, in practical terms, allowed to participate in our electoral system. Both of these parties are strongly pro-capitalist and well to the right of center when assessed on a world political scale.
The overwhelming majority of electoral college delegates are, themselves, politicians. The rest of them are, typically, major financial donors to the party of their allegiance. The electoral college is indeed anti-democratic: it nurtures the Democratic/Republican stranglehold on American politics, and insures against the American people making the "wrong" choice.
Plan for 2012 (& Permanent) White House control by progressives happening now
Called the “National Popular Vote Compact” this movement has been in the works nationwide – without public attention – on a state-by-state level since at least 2008.
Like other surreptitious actions against the U.S. Constitution, the NPVC “movement” has several promotional websites claiming to represent “true democracy.”
The NPVC is a bill now moving state-by-state to make the popular vote winner President by bypassing normal requirements to amend the Constitution. Tts outcome would ensure the Presidency would be declared by giving all the required 270 Electoral Votes needed for a “winner” to the candidate who wins the largest number of popular votes nationally – no matter how small the win margin and no difference how many states voted to oppose him. Here’s how it works:
Once enough states have passed the NPVC bill into law to reach the requisite 270 Electoral Votes (by totaling the EV’s of those states which pass this bill) the NPVC goes into immediate effect in the next – and all subsequent – Presidential elections. It doesn’t matter how strongly other states oppose this. We’d all have to go along, if even a minority of states pass it! • Currently, this bill has passed enough state houses to reach more than 160 EV’s – so they are well over half way to their goal right now.
According to most up-to-date information this National Popular Vote Pact has already passed 1 of the 2 required chambers in more than 30 other states- without public attention.
If their magic number of 270 EV totaling states is reached, it won’t matter how the rest of the states vote on this; nor whether other states never take up the bill; not even if other states vehemently object and oppose this action. It would be the Law of the Land!
This sneaky scheme to upend Constitutional rights and protections of all states and their residents in selecting the nation’s leader is underway as an explicit attempt to defeat the careful Constitutional amendment process with no public knowledge, no voter input, no public referendums and no input from states which object to this measure. All NPVC takes is a portion of current state houses to make it law for all of us – always!
Why would progressives want to switch to a National Popular Vote POTUS?
Do the math: The electoral vote system protects voting rights by giving every individual state a number of electoral votes representing the level of population. In this way, all states in the Union have a proportionate and representative say in who becomes President. It doesn’t matter if the state has more land mass than populace, or if more of the people live in rural areas, etc.
Who is behind the National Popular Vote Compact?
George Soros ...and
Meet the Men behind this “Compact”: Vikram Amar & Akhil Reed Amar
The National Public Vote Compact bill, promoted nationwide, came from this source in 2001. Since then, the same bill based on their strategy has been filed in states nationwide!
Digging into the background of the National Public Vote Compact – as a means to radically and permanently shift the basis of the Presidency, here’s what we found: highly credentialed attorneys (and brothers) who devised this “state bill” compact, as a strategy to get around the normal requirements for constitutional amendment – and, instead, undermine the Electoral College by bypassing both Congress and the voters!
I understand our nation's history, I just disagree about what to do in the future. Since the founding fathers left us the ability to amend the constitution, we can do that (and have, in our history) when something isn't working that well or is simply antiquate.
I don't think the split the Founding Fathers were concerned with was an urban-rural split. The country at the time was highly agrarian. They were more concerned about the split between the northern and southern states. They were also concerned that the (uneducated) people would elect idiots, which happens sometimes despite the electoral college and a literate populace.
The same state-level-ideology-protection mechanisms that are reflected in the electoral college are present in the House of Representatives and Senate. They are more protective of local viewpoints because congressional districts are local, as opposed to the winner-take-all disposition of electoral votes in 96% of states. Those are the people whose jobs it is to represent their local viewpoints. Not the President who is the chief executive of the whole country.
Most of the time there is no difference in outcome between the national popular vote and the electoral college, but because of the negative effect that it has on Presidential campaigns and likely voter turnout, I think abolishing it is the right step going forward.
The Founding Fathers were concerned with an urban-rural split. The economy of the United States in the late 1700's was highly agrarian, but the split between the northern and southern states was largely founded on a difference in urban versus rural. These were educated men who had studied and familiarized themselves with different political systems and the weaknesses and strengths of those political systems. They were well aware that the favoring of urbanites in democracies was a weakness of democracies. If the system always gives an advantage to a specific portion of the population, that system is systematically unfair to the disadvantaged portions of the population. To compare Massachusetts to North Carolina in 1780 underscores the fundamental differences between urban and rural. And it's not so much that the Founding Fathers were concerned that the uneducated people would elect idiots, as that the Founding Fathers always recognized that people will cast their votes according to their own self-interests. The state legislatures were seen as a buffer, where larger issues would be considered, for their impact on the majority of a state's citizens. The Founding Fathers were concerned that the people, uneducated or not, would fall victim to idealogues who are driven by agendas rather than committing to policies that best serve the people as a whole.
And that is very evident in today's politics. When we talk about issue-driven politics, we are talking about voters who are not as interested in the entire package as they are about ideology, and are therefore much more vulnerable to idealogues. And the problem is exacerbated because "the people whose jobs it is to represent their local viewpoints" can't do that job anymore. They are charged with representing, in some cases, more than 600,000 viewpoints. It's not only impossible to represent that many viewpoints, the real problem is that it's impossible to hear that many viewpoints. When we limited the number of representatives to the House of Representatives to 435, we set ourselves on the road to where we are today, to the vast majority of people being dissatisfied with their representation, and to the representatives who are paralyzed from acting, who spend more time and funds to study projects and less time actually being effective. Unhappy with their performance, we try to get rid of the experienced, and introduce new legislators. Who are even more ineffective because not only do they not know what legislation to work for to represent their constituents, they don't know how to go about getting that legislation actually on the floor.
We need to find ways to re-connect the representatives with the people they are supposed to represent. We need to find ways to make our representation in Congress more equitable. We need to find ways to manage a government that is supposed to represent the large and growing population of the United States.
Personally, I think that we need to remove the 435 limit on Representatives. Technologically, we can accommodate more representatives, and in doing so, we can expand the voice of the people in our federal legislature, we can make "local" truly "local" again, and the impact on the electoral college would be to make it even more unlikely for the electoral college to vote differently from the popular vote.
The other thing we need to do is to address the primaries. Iowa and New Hampshire do not need to be the first states to hold primaries. We need regional primaries that have staggered and rotating voting schedules. That is to say, that New England has all its primaries on the same day, likewise each region has all its primaries on the same day. And the order of the primaries rotates, so that during one election year, the Upper Midwest goes first, and the next election the Southwest goes first, the next election New England goes first, and so on. The advantage of this is that no state or region dominates the primary process, each region gets the opportunity to start weeding out candidates. And, by having regional primaries, the candidates can travel more widely through a region, getting their message out, but, more importantly, hearing what the voters have to say about what their issues and concerns and goals are. Regional primaries actually save money, because it allows the candidates to focus their energies and resources in a limited geographic and demographic area. The parties control the primary process, and the problem is the parties aren't public institutions, they are private entities. The political parties are private organizations that serve a public purpose. But as private organizations, their power in the election process is unfettered. And in our system of government, private organizations determining the outcome of elections is problematic.
I think that is the shinny coat on this turd. Sure, it may seem that way. .at least in execution. Yet the reality is far different.
1) the Electoral college is not bound to the states vote. I.e. Florida could go Republican and the electoral college could pick Democrat. It doesn't normally happen, but this is in place for a reason.
2) already the individual "farmer" or " college student" or whomever vote is cast aside regardless. You are talking a big game about giving states power. Yet states today go one way or another. The individual within a state have no ability, in most cases, to influence that election. A professor in Indiana vote is just as disregarded as your "state power", when the state goes Red and his vote is cast to a republican instead of a democrat.
I mean the only way your system would be accurate would be if a states electoral college is allocated by votes (i.e. if 50% democrat and 50% republican for a 10 vote state, than 5 one way and 5 another) . That isn't how its played. 51% in a state, and all 10 go to the winner. I'm surprise you have a straight face and tell us that this procedure gives anyone a voice.
Actually, the electoral college is bound to the states' vote. How they are bound is determined by the states themselves, but many states have laws that govern how the electors MUST vote when the tally of the electoral college is taken. That's why we have winner-take-all states, and states that determine their electors by proportion. Because the electors are bound to the states.
And it's important to note that the system of apportioning electors is determined by the states. There is no federal law that tells states how to do it. Therefore, this part of the procedure is completely separate from the electoral college. It can be changed, by the states, without any federal intercession required. A federal amendment is not needed.
Actually, the electoral college is bound to the states' vote. How they are bound is determined by the states themselves, but many states have laws that govern how the electors MUST vote when the tally of the electoral college is taken. That's why we have winner-take-all states, and states that determine their electors by proportion. Because the electors are bound to the states.
And it's important to note that the system of apportioning electors is determined by the states. There is no federal law that tells states how to do it. Therefore, this part of the procedure is completely separate from the electoral college. It can be changed, by the states, without any federal intercession required. A federal amendment is not needed.
Also, there are rogue electors who pop up from time to time. They vote differently than they are supposed to. So, let us say, they are nearly always bound to the state's vote.
Quote:
n 158 instances, electors have cast their votes for President or Vice President in a manner different from that prescribed by the legislature of the state they represented. Of those, 71 votes were changed because the original candidate died before the elector was able to cast a vote. Two votes were not cast at all when electors chose to abstain from casting their electoral vote for any candidate. The remaining 85 were changed by the elector's personal interest, or perhaps by accident. Usually, the faithless electors act alone. An exception was the U.S. presidential election of 1836, in which 23 Virginia electors conspired to change their vote together.
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.
