Page 12 of 28 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 277

Thread: New York does away with Electoral College

  1. #111
    Sage
    AliHajiSheik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    6,390

    Re: New York does away with Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by mvymvy View Post
    Only when it goes into effect, with the needed 270 electoral votes to guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, will the National Popular Vote bill ensure that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election.
    I don't care about polls, the only polls that matter are the ones that actually can change something. I still think it is crap that states pass these changes contingent on other states voting. If they believe in the change then they can make it effective now and now wait until a "sufficient" number of other states pass similar legislation.

    I expect my vote to be equal to my neighbors vote, I don't care about being equal to someone in Wyoming or California.
    People in Dubai don't like the Flintstones but people in Abu Dhabi do

  2. #112
    Student
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    01-25-16 @ 03:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    277

    Re: New York does away with Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by PirateMk1 View Post
    . . . National popular vote would exacerbate the problem of the swing states except instead of whole states being courted it would be just certain cities because that is were the people are. California is a prime example of why popular vote is not good idea especially nationally. California is both rural and metropolitan and has the needs and problems of both many of which are mutually exclusive. There are three cities that control California LA SF and SAC. They together have just enough population to cancel out the rural populations like Bakersfield, Fresno, Redding ect. . . .
    A nationwide presidential campaign, with every voter equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as 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 do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida. In the 4 states that accounted for over two-thirds of all general-election activity in the 2012 presidential election, rural areas, suburbs, exurbs, and cities all received attention—roughly in proportion to their population.

    The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every voter is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.

    With National Popular Vote, when every voter is equal, everywhere, it makes sense for presidential candidates to try and elevate their votes where they are and aren't so well liked. But, under the state-by-state winner-take-all laws, it makes no sense for a Democrat to try and do that in Vermont or Wyoming, or for a Republican to try it in Wyoming or Vermont.

    Even 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 Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.

    In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.

    Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.

    There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.

    With a national popular vote, every voter everywhere will be equally important politically. There will be nothing special about a vote cast in a big city or big state. When every voter is equal, candidates of both parties will seek out voters in small, medium, and large towns throughout the states in order to win. A vote cast in a big city or state will be equal to a vote cast in a small state, town, or rural area.

    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 waitress mom voters in Ohio.

  3. #113
    Sage
    Lutherf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Tucson, AZ
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:33 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    24,707

    Re: New York does away with Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by mvymvy View Post
    With the current state-by-state winner take all method (not mentioned, much less endorsed in the Constitution), 80% of states and voters are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.

    The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists, who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates.
    The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

    National Popular Vote is based on Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which gives each state legislature the right to decide how to appoint its own electors. Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states:
    “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 Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

    The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

    The National Popular Vote bill is a state law, enacted by states, to replace their current state laws for how to award their electoral votes.
    It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. We would continue to vote state by state.

    The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of Electoral College votes—that is, enough to elect a President (270 of 538). The candidate receiving the most popular votes from all 50 states (and DC) would get all the 270+ Electoral College votes of the enacting states.

    We would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states.

    National Popular Vote ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

    Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.
    That's great but we're supposed to be a union of several states with each citizen responsible to their state first and to the union second. It is the states that are supposed to elect the president. When we remove that right from the states and grant it to the nation as a whole we chop a huge slice out of the core of Republicanism.

  4. #114
    Why so serious?

    Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,292

    Re: New York does away with Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by Amandi View Post
    Doesnt the winner-take-all system of the electorial college disenfranchise people that live in solid blue or red states if they vote opposite of their states leanings?
    No, it means their guy lost, same as if it were a direct vote and their guy got fewer votes than someone else.
    "I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."

    --Albert Einstein, 1929

  5. #115
    Why so serious?

    Moon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Washington State
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,292

    Re: New York does away with Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by Grand Mal View Post
    If the wacky-do electoral college system is all that stands between you and totalitarianism, you're already doomed.
    Probably a good thing he didn't say that it was, then.
    "I believe in a Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and actions of human beings."

    --Albert Einstein, 1929

  6. #116
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,710

    Re: New York does away with Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Video @:[/FONT][/COLOR]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_35DiUNLZI
    More found @: New York joins campaign to end Electoral College role in presidential elections - NY Daily News

    Honestly, I think we should get rid of the electoral college. I believe it only makes sense. If we are a democracy, why not be a democracy that elects its highest leader? I mean it only makes sense.. I mean I know what some people are going to say, "hey we arent a democracy, we are a republic!". But you can be a republic and a democracy at the same time. The electoral college is outdated and irrational with our political climate and system.
    What happens when there is a recount?
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  7. #117
    Sage
    jmotivator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    16,710

    Re: New York does away with Electoral College

    So far the total number of electoral votes tied into this scheme are 165. To see the effect this pact has on the 2016 Presidential Election outcome I decided to use the 2012 election as an example. In 2012 there were a total of 124 million votes cast across all states. So a voter's share of the the electoral process (I will call it "Voting Power") would be the number of Electoral votes the voter is voting to assign divided by the total number of voters who cast a ballot for those votes.

    So, for instance, here in VA my vote power would be 13EV/3,888,186. For simplicity sake I then multiply the result by 1 million to get my Vote Power Score of 3.34

    In 2012 The NY voter's vote power would be 31EV/7,128,852*1mil. That makes their Vote Power: 4.34

    So the average New Yorker had about a 30% higher vote power than a Virginian in 2012. But what about 2016?

    Well, New Yorkers will now -- assuming the same turnout -- have a vote power of 165EV/124,026,000*1mil. That makes their Vote power in 2016 only 1.33

    BUT WAIT!! It gets better! Because of this scheme I now have that same 1.33 Voting power from the collective since I now essentially vote in all the pact states as well as my own state. So my voting power will be 4.67 ... or 350% higher than the average New Yorker.

    Good job Governor Cuomo!!
    Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish and he stops voting for the Free Fish party.

  8. #118
    Student
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    01-25-16 @ 03:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    277

    Re: New York does away with Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    What happens when there is a recount?

    We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and is prepared to conduct a recount.

    The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes); no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.

    Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.

    The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.

    The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.


    The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
    “It’s an arsonist itching to burn down the whole neighborhood by torching a single house.” Hertzberg

    Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.

    The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.

    No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 57 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.

    The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.

  9. #119
    Student
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Seen
    01-25-16 @ 03:19 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    277

    Re: New York does away with Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by jmotivator View Post
    So far the total number of electoral votes tied into this scheme are 165. To see the effect this pact has on the 2016 Presidential Election outcome I decided to use the 2012 election as an example. In 2012 there were a total of 124 million votes cast across all states. So a voter's share of the the electoral process (I will call it "Voting Power") would be the number of Electoral votes the voter is voting to assign divided by the total number of voters who cast a ballot for those votes.

    So, for instance, here in VA my vote power would be 13EV/3,888,186. For simplicity sake I then multiply the result by 1 million to get my Vote Power Score of 3.34

    In 2012 The NY voter's vote power would be 31EV/7,128,852*1mil. That makes their Vote Power: 4.34

    So the average New Yorker had about a 30% higher vote power than a Virginian in 2012. But what about 2016?

    Well, New Yorkers will now -- assuming the same turnout -- have a vote power of 165EV/124,026,000*1mil. That makes their Vote power in 2016 only 1.33

    BUT WAIT!! It gets better! Because of this scheme I now have that same 1.33 Voting power from the collective since I now essentially vote in all the pact states as well as my own state. So my voting power will be 4.67 ... or 350% higher than the average New Yorker.

    Good job Governor Cuomo!!
    State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations. "Voting power" math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaigns and to presidents once in office.

    New York, like 80% of the states and voters, have no "voting power" under the current system.

    The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, will not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 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.

    Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win.
    10 of the original 13 states are ignored 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. They decided the election.
    None of the 10 most rural states mattered, as usual.
    About 80% of the country was ignored --including 24 of the 27 lowest population and medium-small states, and 13 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX.

    80% of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

    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 number and population of battleground states is shrinking.

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

    Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
    “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [in the then] 18 battleground states.” [only 10 in 2012]

    Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
    “If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

    The state-by-state winner-take-all rule adversely affects governance. Sitting Presidents (whether contemplating their own re-election or the election of their preferred successor) pay inordinate attention to the interests of “battleground” states.
    ** “Battleground” states receive over 7% more grants than other states.
    ** “Battleground” states receive 5% more grant dollars.
    ** A “battleground” state can expect to receive twice as many presidential disaster declarations as an uncompetitive state.
    ** The locations of Superfund enforcement actions also reflect a state’s battleground status.
    ** Federal exemptions from the No Child Left Behind law have been characterized as “‘no swing state left behind.”

    The effect of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system on governance is discussed at length in Presidential Pork by Dr. John Hudak of the Brookings Institution.

    Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west, and Pacific Rim trade issues.

  10. #120
    Preserve Protect Defend
    Beaudreaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Covfefe, NC
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,566

    Re: New York does away with Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by mvymvy View Post
    No state is ceding power to the Federal Government or voters from other states.

    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 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 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 current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." 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. 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.

    States enacting National Popular Vote are ensuring that their states and their voters are politically relevant in presidential campaigns and beyond.

    Now 80% of states and voters are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns. We have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters, 200 million Americans, ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.


    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 number and population of battleground states is shrinking.

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

    Charlie Cook reported in 2004:
    “Senior Bush campaign strategist Matthew Dowd pointed out yesterday that the Bush campaign hadn’t taken a national poll in almost two years; instead, it has been polling [in the then] 18 battleground states.” [only 10 in 2012]

    Bush White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer acknowledging the reality that [then] more than 2/3rds of Americans were ignored in the 2008 presidential campaign, said in the Washington Post on June 21, 2009:
    “If people don’t like it, they can move from a safe state to a swing state.”

    The state-by-state winner-take-all rule adversely affects governance. Sitting Presidents (whether contemplating their own re-election or the election of their preferred successor) pay inordinate attention to the interests of “battleground” states.
    ** “Battleground” states receive over 7% more grants than other states.
    ** “Battleground” states receive 5% more grant dollars.
    ** A “battleground” state can expect to receive twice as many presidential disaster declarations as an uncompetitive state.
    ** The locations of Superfund enforcement actions also reflect a state’s battleground status.
    ** Federal exemptions from the No Child Left Behind law have been characterized as “‘no swing state left behind.”

    The effect of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system on governance is discussed at length in Presidential Pork by Dr. John Hudak of the Brookings Institution.

    Compare the response to hurricane Katrina (in Louisiana, a "safe" state) to the federal response to hurricanes in Florida (a "swing" state) under Presidents of both parties. President Obama took more interest in the BP oil spill, once it reached Florida's shores, after it had first reached Louisiana. Some pandering policy examples include ethanol subsidies, Steel Tariffs, and Medicare Part D. Policies not given priority, include those most important to non-battleground states - like water issues in the west, and Pacific Rim trade issues.
    Too much political ideological hogwash wrapped in revisionist history for me to waste my time on right now.

    Sorry you spent so much time writing that, but you chose the wrong guy to fish for a response to that mess.
    Everything in your life is a reflection of a choice you have made. If you want a different result, don't blame someone else, or expect others to make a change, you should stop complaining and make a different choice. Remember, the circumstances of your birth don't determine the outcome of your life.

Page 12 of 28 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •