_________________
Wheelhouse

Does that mean eliminating the Electoral College in presidential elections? I think I'd probably support that effort. It's a little confusing that a Republican would push for this to me though, because I think the Electoral College favors Republicans these days since so many of the smaller populated states usually go GOP and going to just a popular vote system would reduce some of the advantage they get from the winner-takes-all Electoral vote system.

The electoral vs popular vote issue has been a load of shit to me from the beginning. It should be one number - the fucking number of votes for each candidate, counted person by person. Votes should be counted in xx million vs xx million, not 150-100 or whatever the right numbers are.

_________________

Abolishing the electoral college means that most candidates would ignore the less populated states and areas, and focus their efforts on large urban areas. That's why the electoral college was created; to make sure smaler states still had some sort of voice.

Of course, the current system tends to have candidates only focus on swing states, and ignore the states they're comfortably ahead in or have no chance in.

There isn't a system that you could put in place that would force candidates to not ignore an area. That's going to happen no matter what.

Wouldn't mind seeing the popular vote at least count for something if it's not the deciding factor in an election.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

That's my point. You should have to win the majority of people. Regardless of where they're from...

Either way the system doesn't appease everyone, but the electoral vote just seems to make a lot more votes count less.

_________________

Not really, I think that's more of a revisionist view of it from today because, as you say, if it weren't for the electoral college, why not just campaign in NY, LA, Chicago, Dallas, Boston, etc.?

However it was originally meant to be a check on the public's power, a safeguard against the stupidity of the masses. People like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton were straight up elitists, and they didn't like the idea of the uneducated (read: average) people making crucial government decisions best left to the experts. So they created the Electoral College to take some of the power away from the population, the same reason that originally the Senate was chosen by the House of Representatives instead of by popular vote. The "Founding Fathers" were not as democratic as they often are portrayed.

Which is why I love Alexander Hamilton.

_________________
Proud LGBTQQ Individual

was the senate not chosen from the state legislative body, and not the house of representatives?

_________________
PSA: I am an overly sarcastic person. If you take me at my word, then i will most likely anger and offend you.

You're right Montalo, it was the state legislatures that chose the Senate. My mistake. Same concept though, in that the public did not elect them. The Senate was the "upper house" and given the power to deal with things like treaties that the House might flub.

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

Every vote, everywhere would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. Every vote, everywhere would be counted for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.

In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives already agree that only 14 states and their voters will matter under the current winner-take-all laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) used by 48 of the 50 states. Candidates will not care about 72% of the voters- voters-in 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. 2012 campaigning would be even more obscenely exclusive than 2008 and 2004. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).

The Electoral College that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.

The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. It would not abolish the Electoral College. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action.

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 in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: CO-- 68%, FL – 78%, IA --75%, MI-- 73%, MO-- 70%, NH-- 69%, NV-- 72%, NM-- 76%, NC-- 74%, OH-- 70%, PA -- 78%, VA -- 74%, and WI -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK – 70%, DC – 76%, DE --75%, ID – 77%, ME -- 77%, MT – 72%, NE -- 74%, NH --69%, NV -- 72%, NM -- 76%, OK – 81%, RI -- 74%, SD – 71%, UT – 70%, VT -- 75%, WV – 81%, and WY – 69%; in Southern and border states: AR --80%, KY -- 80%, MS --77%, MO -- 70%, NC -- 74%, OK – 81%, SC – 71%, VA -- 74%, and WV – ‘81%; and in other states polled: CA -- 70%, CT -- 74% , MA -- 73%, MN – 75%, NY -- 79%, OR – 76%, and WA -- 77%.

The bill has passed 31 state legislative chambers, in 21 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in AR, CT, DE, DC, ME, MI, NV, NM, NY, NC, and OR, and both houses in CA, CO, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA ,RI, VT, and WA . The bill has been enacted by DC, HI, IL, NJ, MD, MA, and WA. These 7 states possess 74 electoral votes — 27% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States.

When presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as in Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods, the big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami certainly did not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida in 2000 and 2004.

In California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don’t campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don’t control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn’t have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles.

If the National Popular Vote bill were to become law, it would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 21% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.

A survey of 800 New York voters conducted on December 22-23, 2008 showed 79% overall support for a national popular vote for President.

By gender, support was 89% among women and 69% among men.

By age, support was 60% among 18-29 year olds, 74% among 30-45 year olds, 85% among 46-65 year olds, and 82% for those older than 65.

Support was 86% among Democrats, 66% among Republicans, 78% among Independence Party members (representing 8% of respondents), 50% among Conservative Party members (representing 3% of respondents), 100% among Working Families Party members (representing 2% of respondents), and 7% among Others (representing 7% of respondents).

http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/po ... NY_2008DEC

I don't know who you are, but I like the cut of your jib.

_________________

Of all the political and electioneering issues in this country, dumping the electoral college is about #5003 on my list.

As Stuuuuu's's' was mentioning, there's a separation for a good reason.
We're not a democracy and there's no urgent reason we need to start moving that direction.

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a "republican" form of government or is a "democracy."

A "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a "republican" form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at district-level (as has been the case in Maine and Nebraska) or at 50-state-level (as under the National Popular Vote bill).

If a "republican" form of government means that the presidential electors exercise independent judgment (like the College of Cardinals that elects the Pope), we have had a "democratic" method of electing presidential electors since 1796 (the first contested presidential election). Ever since 1796, presidential candidates have been nominated by a central authority (originally congressional caucuses, and now party conventions) and electors are reliable rubberstamps for the voters of the district or state that elected them.

How about instead of registering to vote, you have to QUALIFY to vote. That makes more sense than anything. If you don't know shit about the issues, then you have no say. I know this is unrealistic, but it's a funny that makes sense.

On a totally unrelated note, the tea-partiers gained some respect from me. I don't like them, or share their views, but they at least do what they say, regardless of what 'their party' says to do. That puts them above the Dems or Repubs in my book.

2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.

Voter turnout in the "battleground" states has been 67%, while turnout in the "spectator" states was 61%.

Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws (i.e., awarding all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in each state) in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 56 (1 in 14) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a handful of votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 votes in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of 3,000,000 votes.

So, how much are you paid and by who?


Who is the sabres color commentator?

_________________
Hold my beer and watch this...

Who the hell is this guy?

_________________
mechaphil