Total Posts:27|Showing Posts:1-27
Jump to topic:

The Electoral College and the Popular Vote

xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 5:55:57 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
What's the point of having both when the Electoral College seems to ultimately decide?

It kinda makes the popular vote irrelevant.

Shouldn't we either:

a) Add some kind of third voting option, making the election a best two out of three race.
b) Take out either the electoral college or popular vote.

And if (b), which one would you all rather take away?
Nolite Timere
donald.keller
Posts: 3,709
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 6:02:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 5:55:57 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
What's the point of having both when the Electoral College seems to ultimately decide?

It kinda makes the popular vote irrelevant.

Shouldn't we either:

a) Add some kind of third voting option, making the election a best two out of three race.
b) Take out either the electoral college or popular vote.

And if (b), which one would you all rather take away?

I believe the Electoral College was created because people back then weren't considered smart enough to vote for a president (it's questionable if their smart enough now) but don't quote me on that. I question the reliability of that story..

Many believe they help ensure lesser states aren't abandoned and screwed over in an election. Seeing as they've very rarely ever gone against popular vote, I don't care rather or not they're there. I only know of once when they went against popular vote, although there has been a few times. For the most part, popular vote decides who the Electoral College votes for.
-- Don't forget to submit your unvoted debates to the Voter's Union --

OFFICIAL DK/TUF 2016 Platform: http://www.debate.org...

My Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com...
#SaveThePresidency
#SaveTheSite

-- DK/TUF 2016 --
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 7:46:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 5:55:57 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
What's the point of having both when the Electoral College seems to ultimately decide?

It kinda makes the popular vote irrelevant.

Shouldn't we either:

a) Add some kind of third voting option, making the election a best two out of three race.
b) Take out either the electoral college or popular vote.

And if (b), which one would you all rather take away?

Personally, I would want take away the popular vote. But that is not going to happen anytime soon or within the next few centuries. Let us be rid of the Electoral College then. It would make sense since we have reached the point of no return: "A Republic No More."
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 8:29:24 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The popular vote influences the Electoral College in most cases but when it comes down to it it is pretty irrelevant because the Electoral College is the final word.
Tophatdoc
Posts: 534
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 9:19:54 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 8:29:24 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
The popular vote influences the Electoral College in most cases but when it comes down to it it is pretty irrelevant because the Electoral College is the final word.

The popular vote didn't always affect the Electoral College..........
"Don't click on my profile. Don't send me friend requests. Don't read my debates. There are many interesting people on DDO. Find one of them. Go find someone exciting and loquacious. Go click on their profile. Go send them friend requests. Go read their debates. Leave me alone." -Tophatdoc
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 9:37:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 8:29:24 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
The popular vote influences the Electoral College in most cases but when it comes down to it it is pretty irrelevant because the Electoral College is the final word.

Right, so does this not technically render the popular vote irrelevent?
Nolite Timere
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 9:41:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 9:37:53 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Why not get rid of the electoral college all together and simply have a popular vote?

We're not a democracy. We're a Republic. We do things via representation. Besides, the Electoral College is supposed to protect us from the tyranny of the masses.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 9:55:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 9:41:45 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 2/3/2014 9:37:53 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Why not get rid of the electoral college all together and simply have a popular vote?

We're not a democracy. We're a Republic. We do things via representation. Besides, the Electoral College is supposed to protect us from the tyranny of the masses.

How does the popular vote adhere only to the masses?

Heck we're seeing politicians these days only paying attention to swing states and states that give mass electoral votes. Is that not unequal?
Nolite Timere
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 10:06:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 9:55:04 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 2/3/2014 9:41:45 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 2/3/2014 9:37:53 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Why not get rid of the electoral college all together and simply have a popular vote?

We're not a democracy. We're a Republic. We do things via representation. Besides, the Electoral College is supposed to protect us from the tyranny of the masses.

How does the popular vote adhere only to the masses?

Heck we're seeing politicians these days only paying attention to swing states and states that give mass electoral votes. Is that not unequal?

Technically not because...
A) a lot of states are set in stone as to what color they'll vote
B) Electoral college is based on population.
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 10:12:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 9:37:53 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Why not get rid of the electoral college all together and simply have a popular vote?

Why bother? The people who think their vote doesn't matter because they aren't in a swing state are wrong--your vote doesn't matter at all because the probability of you tilting an election either way is absurdly small. To abolish the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment..and for what? To do away with the last relic of American federalism? The campaigning and voting alone for the change would be so costly as to outweigh any marginal benefit (if, indeed, there is on) many many times over.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 10:18:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 10:12:36 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/3/2014 9:37:53 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Why not get rid of the electoral college all together and simply have a popular vote?

Why bother?

I'm being idealistic you silly realist.

The people who think their vote doesn't matter because they aren't in a swing state are wrong--your vote doesn't matter at all because the probability of you tilting an election either way is absurdly small.

Even you must know how flawed this is. Although mathematically correct, it certainly isn't philosophically sound. After all, it's simple logic that if every single person voted then we would more likely have a president that adheres to the population then if say, 25% of the population voted. In a sense, you can't think of voting from an individualistic standpoint rather you must think of it from a "group-effort" kind of standpoint.

To abolish the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment..and for what?
-

To do away with the last relic of American federalism?

Please elaborate here. What good is a relic if it is useless?

The campaigning and voting alone for the change would be so costly as to outweigh any marginal benefit (if, indeed, there is on) many many times over.

Again, idealism, not realism.
Nolite Timere
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 10:29:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 10:18:53 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 2/3/2014 10:12:36 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/3/2014 9:37:53 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Why not get rid of the electoral college all together and simply have a popular vote?

Why bother?

I'm being idealistic you silly realist.

meh

The people who think their vote doesn't matter because they aren't in a swing state are wrong--your vote doesn't matter at all because the probability of you tilting an election either way is absurdly small.

Even you must know how flawed this is. Although mathematically correct, it certainly isn't philosophically sound. After all, it's simple logic that if every single person voted then we would more likely have a president that adheres to the population then if say, 25% of the population voted. In a sense, you can't think of voting from an individualistic standpoint rather you must think of it from a "group-effort" kind of standpoint.

I know no such thing. What you say is true, but it does nothing to rebut the fact that if any particular person doesn't vote, the effect is nil. The fact that people voting is important for swaying an election doesn't mean that a person voting is important or brings any marginal benefit.

In fact, the probability of your vote or your voice having...any effect whatsoever is so low that from a purely realistic perspective it's an irrational use of your time. The fact that I'm here shows my own idealism I suppose.

To abolish the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment..and for what?
-

To do away with the last relic of American federalism?

Please elaborate here. What good is a relic if it is useless?

Here's where I leave my realism and enter my own idealism.


The campaigning and voting alone for the change would be so costly as to outweigh any marginal benefit (if, indeed, there is on) many many times over.

Again, idealism, not realism.

But can we really base policy off that? In my opinion its these very kinds of good intentions that have cost our society. Ideally to most people we should provide welfare to our citizens. Realistically, we can't afford it (at least not the current system). And the result is what we have, an inept and useless congress filled with corrupt sycophants and an electorate who knows something is wrong but is too docile and lazy to figure out exactly *what*. But I digress
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/3/2014 10:38:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 10:29:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/3/2014 10:18:53 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 2/3/2014 10:12:36 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/3/2014 9:37:53 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Why not get rid of the electoral college all together and simply have a popular vote?

Why bother?

I'm being idealistic you silly realist.

meh

The people who think their vote doesn't matter because they aren't in a swing state are wrong--your vote doesn't matter at all because the probability of you tilting an election either way is absurdly small.

Even you must know how flawed this is. Although mathematically correct, it certainly isn't philosophically sound. After all, it's simple logic that if every single person voted then we would more likely have a president that adheres to the population then if say, 25% of the population voted. In a sense, you can't think of voting from an individualistic standpoint rather you must think of it from a "group-effort" kind of standpoint.

I know no such thing. What you say is true, but it does nothing to rebut the fact that if any particular person doesn't vote, the effect is nil. The fact that people voting is important for swaying an election doesn't mean that a person voting is important or brings any marginal benefit.

So are you saying that the electoral college is better because it is inherently a group effort via representing multiple people with electoral votes as opposed to individuals voting?

In fact, the probability of your vote or your voice having...any effect whatsoever is so low that from a purely realistic perspective it's an irrational use of your time. The fact that I'm here shows my own idealism I suppose.

However if you look around yourself while voting and think "'I'm not wasting my time because all of us together can make a difference" then is it really a waste of time?

Or with the knowledge that people may hold your opinion people could think "well since less people are voting my vote therefore means more."

Or even think large scale "with all the people around the country voting all of us together can make a difference."

Fact is, in the end it's just the same conclusion with a different mindset.

To abolish the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment..and for what?
-

To do away with the last relic of American federalism?

Please elaborate here. What good is a relic if it is useless?

Here's where I leave my realism and enter my own idealism.


The campaigning and voting alone for the change would be so costly as to outweigh any marginal benefit (if, indeed, there is on) many many times over.

Again, idealism, not realism.

But can we really base policy off that? In my opinion its these very kinds of good intentions that have cost our society. Ideally to most people we should provide welfare to our citizens. Realistically, we can't afford it (at least not the current system). And the result is what we have, an inept and useless congress filled with corrupt sycophants and an electorate who knows something is wrong but is too docile and lazy to figure out exactly *what*. But I digress

Of course not. I'm just being idealistic. Can't a man have a little fun with his imagination? Anyways, isn't true progress when we can puts our idealism into reality?
Nolite Timere
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 10:48:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 10:38:13 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 2/3/2014 10:29:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/3/2014 10:18:53 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 2/3/2014 10:12:36 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/3/2014 9:37:53 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Why not get rid of the electoral college all together and simply have a popular vote?

Why bother?

I'm being idealistic you silly realist.

meh

The people who think their vote doesn't matter because they aren't in a swing state are wrong--your vote doesn't matter at all because the probability of you tilting an election either way is absurdly small.

Even you must know how flawed this is. Although mathematically correct, it certainly isn't philosophically sound. After all, it's simple logic that if every single person voted then we would more likely have a president that adheres to the population then if say, 25% of the population voted. In a sense, you can't think of voting from an individualistic standpoint rather you must think of it from a "group-effort" kind of standpoint.

I know no such thing. What you say is true, but it does nothing to rebut the fact that if any particular person doesn't vote, the effect is nil. The fact that people voting is important for swaying an election doesn't mean that a person voting is important or brings any marginal benefit.

So are you saying that the electoral college is better because it is inherently a group effort via representing multiple people with electoral votes as opposed to individuals voting?

No, I'm saying that there isn't any practical difference between the two for the average voter because their vote doesn't matter in either system


In fact, the probability of your vote or your voice having...any effect whatsoever is so low that from a purely realistic perspective it's an irrational use of your time. The fact that I'm here shows my own idealism I suppose.

However if you look around yourself while voting and think "'I'm not wasting my time because all of us together can make a difference" then is it really a waste of time?

No, it's not. But that feel good effect exists under either system. I mean, it clearly has me under its spell as I voted in 2012 and plan to do so in 2014, lol

Or with the knowledge that people may hold your opinion people could think "well since less people are voting my vote therefore means more."

Or even think large scale "with all the people around the country voting all of us together can make a difference."

Fact is, in the end it's just the same conclusion with a different mindset.

To abolish the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment..and for what?
-

To do away with the last relic of American federalism?

Please elaborate here. What good is a relic if it is useless?

Here's where I leave my realism and enter my own idealism.


The campaigning and voting alone for the change would be so costly as to outweigh any marginal benefit (if, indeed, there is on) many many times over.

Again, idealism, not realism.

But can we really base policy off that? In my opinion its these very kinds of good intentions that have cost our society. Ideally to most people we should provide welfare to our citizens. Realistically, we can't afford it (at least not the current system). And the result is what we have, an inept and useless congress filled with corrupt sycophants and an electorate who knows something is wrong but is too docile and lazy to figure out exactly *what*. But I digress

Of course not. I'm just being idealistic. Can't a man have a little fun with his imagination?

Of course :P

Anyways, isn't true progress when we can puts our idealism into reality?

Only if your idealism is worth it. I don't see why it's worth it to abolish the EC. Honestly I think the EC is pretty cool, but thats just me
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 11:34:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 10:48:01 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/3/2014 10:38:13 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 2/3/2014 10:29:30 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/3/2014 10:18:53 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 2/3/2014 10:12:36 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 2/3/2014 9:37:53 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Why not get rid of the electoral college all together and simply have a popular vote?

Why bother?

I'm being idealistic you silly realist.

meh

The people who think their vote doesn't matter because they aren't in a swing state are wrong--your vote doesn't matter at all because the probability of you tilting an election either way is absurdly small.

Even you must know how flawed this is. Although mathematically correct, it certainly isn't philosophically sound. After all, it's simple logic that if every single person voted then we would more likely have a president that adheres to the population then if say, 25% of the population voted. In a sense, you can't think of voting from an individualistic standpoint rather you must think of it from a "group-effort" kind of standpoint.

I know no such thing. What you say is true, but it does nothing to rebut the fact that if any particular person doesn't vote, the effect is nil. The fact that people voting is important for swaying an election doesn't mean that a person voting is important or brings any marginal benefit.

So are you saying that the electoral college is better because it is inherently a group effort via representing multiple people with electoral votes as opposed to individuals voting?

No, I'm saying that there isn't any practical difference between the two for the average voter because their vote doesn't matter in either system

"Vote doesn't matter"

In fact, the probability of your vote or your voice having...any effect whatsoever is so low that from a purely realistic perspective it's an irrational use of your time. The fact that I'm here shows my own idealism I suppose.

However if you look around yourself while voting and think "'I'm not wasting my time because all of us together can make a difference" then is it really a waste of time?

No, it's not. But that feel good effect exists under either system. I mean, it clearly has me under its spell as I voted in 2012 and plan to do so in 2014, lol

So you don't actually believe in what you are saying?

Or with the knowledge that people may hold your opinion people could think "well since less people are voting my vote therefore means more."

Or even think large scale "with all the people around the country voting all of us together can make a difference."

Fact is, in the end it's just the same conclusion with a different mindset.

To abolish the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment..and for what?
-

To do away with the last relic of American federalism?

Please elaborate here. What good is a relic if it is useless?

Here's where I leave my realism and enter my own idealism.


The campaigning and voting alone for the change would be so costly as to outweigh any marginal benefit (if, indeed, there is on) many many times over.

Again, idealism, not realism.

But can we really base policy off that? In my opinion its these very kinds of good intentions that have cost our society. Ideally to most people we should provide welfare to our citizens. Realistically, we can't afford it (at least not the current system). And the result is what we have, an inept and useless congress filled with corrupt sycophants and an electorate who knows something is wrong but is too docile and lazy to figure out exactly *what*. But I digress

Of course not. I'm just being idealistic. Can't a man have a little fun with his imagination?

Of course :P

Anyways, isn't true progress when we can puts our idealism into reality?

Only if your idealism is worth it. I don't see why it's worth it to abolish the EC. Honestly I think the EC is pretty cool, but thats just me

Well I'm not actually against the EC, I'm just throwing ideas and thoughts around.
Nolite Timere
mvymvy
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 12:19:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
To abolish the Electoral College would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population.

Instead, by state laws, without changing anything in the Constitution, 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. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps pre-determining the outcome. 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 now are just 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.

When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes" enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.

The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founders 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 Founders in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for President. States can, and frequently have, changed their method of awarding electoral votes over the years. 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 among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls
in recent or past 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 Small 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%, TN " 83%, VA " 74%, and WV " 81%; and
in other states polled: AZ " 67%, CA " 70%, CT " 74%, MA " 73%, MN " 75%, NY " 79%, OR " 76%, and WA " 77%.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.

The bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 rural, small, medium, and large states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes " 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
mvymvy
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 12:24:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 6:02:08 PM, donald.keller wrote:
Many believe they help ensure lesser states aren't abandoned and screwed over in an election. Seeing as they've very rarely ever gone against popular vote, I don't care rather or not they're there. I only know of once when they went against popular vote, although there has been a few times. For the most part, popular vote decides who the Electoral College votes for.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency with a mere 23% of the nation's votes!

In 2012, 24 of the nation's 27 smallest states received no attention at all from presidential campaigns after the conventions.- including not a single dollar in presidential campaign ad money after Mitt Romney became the presumptive Republican nominee on April 11. They were ignored despite their supposed numerical advantage in the Electoral College. In fact, the 8.6 million eligible voters in Ohio received more campaign ads and campaign visits from the major party campaigns than the 42 million eligible voters in those 27 smallest states combined.

Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive in presidential elections. 6 regularly vote Republican (AK, ID, MT, WY, ND, and SD), and 6 regularly vote Democratic (RI, DE, HI, VT, ME, and DC) in presidential elections. Voters in states that are reliably red or blue don't matter. Candidates ignore those states and the issues they care about most.

Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK -70%, DC -76%, DE --75%, ID -77%, ME - 77%, MT- 72%, NE - 74%, NH--69%, NE - 72%, NM - 76%, RI - 74%, SD- 71%, UT- 70%, VT - 75%, WV- 81%, and WY- 69%.

Among the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers, and been enacted by 4 jurisdictions.

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 57 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 7 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, and 2012). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes. In 2012, a shift of 214,733 popular votes in four states would have elected Mitt Romney, despite President Obama"s nationwide lead of 4,966,945 votes.

There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. Since 1796, the Electoral College has had the form, but not the substance, of the deliberative body envisioned by the Founders. The electors now are 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.

If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party's dedicated activists.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).
mvymvy
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 12:27:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 9:41:45 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
We're not a democracy. We're a Republic. We do things via representation. Besides, the Electoral College is supposed to protect us from the tyranny of the masses.

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. Since then, state laws gave the people the right to vote for President in all 50 states and DC.

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state.

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. 9 states determined the 2012 election. 10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now. Four out of five Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising. In 2008, 98% of the campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." The electors now are 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.

We are a Republic and a Democracy. They are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "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 National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. The candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the 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.

The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote has nothing to do with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a 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.
mvymvy
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 12:32:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 10:12:36 PM, thett3 wrote:
Why bother? The people who think their vote doesn't matter because they aren't in a swing state are wrong--your vote doesn't matter at all because the probability of you tilting an election either way is absurdly small. To abolish the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment..and for what? To do away with the last relic of American federalism? The campaigning and voting alone for the change would be so costly as to outweigh any marginal benefit (if, indeed, there is on) many many times over.

With the Electoral College and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interests within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for their party"s presidential candidate. That is not what the Founders intended.

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to "battleground" states when it comes to governing.

Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.

States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "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."

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national government. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

The bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 rural, small, medium, and large states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes " 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.

NationalPopularVote
mvymvy
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 12:32:56 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.

In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.

If presidential campaigns now did not ignore more than 200,000,000 of 300,000,000 Americans, one would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80% of the country that is currently ignored by presidential campaigns.
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2014 4:12:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Keep the current number of electoral votes per state determined by the national census. Have each state allot its electoral votes based on the share of the popular vote in that state won by each candidate - this will allow for fractions of an electoral vote to be cast but that is fine. This way, smaller states still get magnified importance so the federalism concerns of just having a popular vote are addressed.

Another way to prevent certain states from being "ignored" by the campaigns is to shake up the schedule of political party primaries so that they are in a different order every election and a different state gets to be first every election.
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 5:44:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
One more thing: this country is both a republic and a democracy. The use of the term "democracy" to refer to everyone voting on everything based on majority rule with no representatives or protection of minority rights is no longer what political scientists mean when they say democracy. The word republic does not need to mean anything more specific than a country that is not ruled by a hereditary monarch. Many republics in history have been ruled by a leader chosen by an oligarchy and not by the people as a whole (ex: Venice, Genoa, etc.). These Republics were not democracies. Once this country had universal suffrage, you could no longer claim that it was not a democracy. Even with the electoral college, it has become the de facto case that electors almost always vote based on the popular vote. Even when they go against it, they know that they are not going to influence the outcome of the election. Many states have laws preventing electors from even doing that.

So just because Aristotle and some of the Founding Fathers used the word democracy to mean mob rule does not mean that that is what the term means today. Haven't you heard of the terms representative democracy and democratic republic? They are often used to refer to the system of government we have.
mvymvy
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 12:06:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/4/2014 4:12:12 PM, rockwater wrote:
Keep the current number of electoral votes per state determined by the national census. Have each state allot its electoral votes based on the share of the popular vote in that state won by each candidate - this will allow for fractions of an electoral vote to be cast but that is fine. This way, smaller states still get magnified importance so the federalism concerns of just having a popular vote are addressed.
.
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.

If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state 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 could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.

If the whole-number proportional approach, the only proportional option available to an individual state on its own, 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 vote equal.

It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. 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.
rockwater
Posts: 273
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2014 1:51:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
For my idea to work you would need fractional proportional votes and therefore a constitutional amendment.

I'm all for the national popular vote alone electing the president. I was proposing a compromise.
Grandbudda
Posts: 16
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 9:22:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/3/2014 10:06:05 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 2/3/2014 9:55:04 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 2/3/2014 9:41:45 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 2/3/2014 9:37:53 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Why not get rid of the electoral college all together and simply have a popular vote?

We're not a democracy. We're a Republic. We do things via representation. Besides, the Electoral College is supposed to protect us from the tyranny of the masses.

How does the popular vote adhere only to the masses?

Heck we're seeing politicians these days only paying attention to swing states and states that give mass electoral votes. Is that not unequal?

Technically not because...
A) a lot of states are set in stone as to what color they'll vote
B) Electoral college is based on population.

Nebraska and Maine apportion their electoral votes based on congressional districts, therefore you can have split electoral votes. All states should be encouraged to adopt that system.
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/10/2014 10:14:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/10/2014 9:22:09 AM, Grandbudda wrote:
At 2/3/2014 10:06:05 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 2/3/2014 9:55:04 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
At 2/3/2014 9:41:45 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
At 2/3/2014 9:37:53 PM, xXCryptoXx wrote:
Why not get rid of the electoral college all together and simply have a popular vote?

We're not a democracy. We're a Republic. We do things via representation. Besides, the Electoral College is supposed to protect us from the tyranny of the masses.

How does the popular vote adhere only to the masses?

Heck we're seeing politicians these days only paying attention to swing states and states that give mass electoral votes. Is that not unequal?

Technically not because...
A) a lot of states are set in stone as to what color they'll vote
B) Electoral college is based on population.

Nebraska and Maine apportion their electoral votes based on congressional districts, therefore you can have split electoral votes. All states should be encouraged to adopt that system.

Idk that makes gerrymandering even a bigger issue. Had each state awarded it's electoral votes by district, Romney would have won in 2012 in 2 of 3 scenarios (depending on how the senate electoral votes were allocated). This plan gives republicans a *massive* advantage. http://m.nationalreview.com...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right