Hookabelly
Well-Known Member
I'm on the fence.
What's your opinion of an electoral college vs. one person one vote?
- Thread starter Hookabelly
- Start date
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
I'm not.
FUCK THE ELECTORIAL COLLEGE.
200 yr. old outdated stupid idea, they were afraid the voters would get drunk and make a mistake they could 'fix'
FUCK THE ELECTORIAL COLLEGE.
200 yr. old outdated stupid idea, they were afraid the voters would get drunk and make a mistake they could 'fix'
Padawanbater2
Well-Known Member
Well, let's discuss what the purpose of the electoral college is
Why do we have that instead of direct democracy?
Why do we have that instead of direct democracy?
ttystikk
Well-Known Member
One more way for the money to rig the system. That's not how it started, but that's what we have now.
Harrekin
Well-Known Member
What is "how many Democrats are multi millionaires"...
bearkat42
Well-Known Member
I'm sure there's a point somewhere in this ridiculous statement, but I'll be damned if I know what it is.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Electoral college was In place because of the times
Transportation isn't a problem now
Transportation isn't a problem now
oldtimer54
Well-Known Member
One person one incorruptible vote.
In my state which is North Carolina
There are 15 electoral college delegates
I see no need for an electoral college.
Out with the old in with the new !
In my state which is North Carolina
There are 15 electoral college delegates
I see no need for an electoral college.
Out with the old in with the new !
Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
Using the Electoral College is not what keeps us from being a direct democracy.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided).
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range -in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80%+ of the states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range -in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80%+ of the states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
The National Popular Vote bill would take effect when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
tangerinegreen555
Well-Known Member
Lol. Just because the majority supports something doesn't mean it's going to happen anytime soon...
It's been 71 years since your quoted 1944 poll...
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range -in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
Since being introduced in 2006, the bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 250 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 11 jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
Going off memory it had something to do with making sure states maintain some autonomy. A state can split their electoral votes by constitution and some I think are talking about doing that. You can bet republicans in California and democrats in Texas would love a split electoral college.
The tyranny of the majority was a big boogeyman to the founders, that's why we were designed as a representative republic instead of a true democracy. Remember Franklin is the one who coined democracy as "two wolves and a lamb voting on what's for lunch".
A "true" democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
Using the Electoral College is not what keeps us from being a direct democracy. It does not make us a representative republic.
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1:
“Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.
In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.
The National Popular Vote bill retains the Electoral College and state control of elections. It again changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.
When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College votes enact the National Popular Vote bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a representative republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
That's pretty much what I said only not as well.
I know the electoral college isn't what makes us a rep rep, our representatives do, I was just describing the thoughts on states autonomy as originally constructed and the perils of a true democracy. Our Senate is an example of how states were designed to have equal voice, our house is the way we have a representative of the populace.
As far as being on topic, I never really gave much mileage to a popular vote happening so I haven't given it full thought. I'd like to see states change how they use the college. Each state actually decides who gets the electoral votes, they always go along with the voting public, but are not obligated to. A state could theoretically award their votes to a candidate that came in 3rd, but to my knowledge never has. I'd like to see electoral votes not be an all or nothing. If your state has 20 votes and the vote was 51/49, I think the electoral votes should reflect that.
Now, by state laws, 48 states use the winner-take-all method and 2 use a district winner method of awarding electoral votes.
The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).
With the National Popular Vote bill, states are changing how they use the college. Each state is deciding to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote to guarantee the presidency to the candidate who wins the national popular vote.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes. There would no longer be a handful of 'battleground' states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80%+ of the states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
Without a constitutional amendment, no state could accurately reflect a 51/49 vote.
Presidential electors are people. Their vote cannot be divided.. Every voter, everywhere would not be equal. The candidate with the most votes could still lose.
Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.
The political reality is that campaign strategies in ordinary elections are based on trying to change a reasonably achievable small percentage of the votes—1%, 2%, or 3%. As a matter of practical politics, only one electoral vote would be in play in almost all states. A system that requires even a 9% share of the popular vote in order to win one electoral vote is fundamentally out of sync with the small-percentage vote shifts that are involved in real-world presidential campaigns.
If a current battleground state, like Colorado, were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.
If states were to ever start adopting the whole-number proportional approach on a piecemeal basis, each additional state adopting the approach would increase the influence of the remaining states and thereby would decrease the incentive of the remaining states to adopt it. Thus, a state-by-state process of adopting the whole-number proportional approach would quickly bring itself to a halt, leaving the states that adopted it with only minimal influence in presidential elections.
The proportional method also easily could result in no candidate winning the needed majority of 270 electoral votes. That would throw the process into Congress to decide the election, regardless of the popular vote in any state or throughout the country.
If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.
A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every voter equal.
It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).
Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach, which would require a constitutional amendment, does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
ginwilly
Well-Known Member
It certainly does make more sense than basically 5 states being the only ones that matter. I understand the reasoning behind the electoral college though, so I see both sides. The States were supposed to elect the President. States no longer hold much power and are more symbolic than autonomous now.
It's a different subject, but when USSR was formed taking away the autonomy of their "States" it led to collapse from it's own weight. We are going in that direction.
With the National Popular Vote bill, states are using their exclusive constitutional autonomous power to change how they use the Electoral College to elect the President. Each state is deciding to award their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote to guarantee the presidency to the candidate who wins the national popular vote.
There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents [enacting states] from making the decision that, in the Twenty-First Century, national voter popularity is a (or perhaps the) crucial factor in worthiness for the office of the President.”
- Vikram David Amar - professor and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the UC Davis School of Law. Before becoming a professor, he clerked for Judge William A. Norris of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Justice Harry Blackmun at the Supreme Court of the United States.
With National Popular Vote, we will continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.
There is nothing in Article II (or elsewhere in the Constitution) that prevents [enacting states] from making the decision that, in the Twenty-First Century, national voter popularity is a (or perhaps the) crucial factor in worthiness for the office of the President.”
- Vikram David Amar - professor and the Associate Dean for Academic Affairs at the UC Davis School of Law. Before becoming a professor, he clerked for Judge William A. Norris of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and for Justice Harry Blackmun at the Supreme Court of the United States.
With National Popular Vote, we will continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.