Page 18 of 28 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... LastLast
Results 171 to 180 of 277

Thread: New York does away with Electoral College

  1. #171
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: New York does away with Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by sawdust View Post
    You couldn't possibly be more incorrect. The electoral college insures that presidential elections aren't dictated by the narrow interests of New York and California. It also gives a voice in the political process to the heartland.
    Your right it guarantees its decided by Florida.


  2. #172
    Educator Soupnazi630's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Ohio
    Last Seen
    11-08-14 @ 09:54 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    855

    Re: New York does away with Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Of course it can. Its called a democratic republic. We are a democratic republic. We elect offcicials to represent us in office. That is representative democracy. We are also a republic, so therfore we are a democratic republic.



    You have a weird definition of tyranny.


    Ok.



    And I agree.
    It is a very old and very normal definition of tyranny , not wierd at all.

    Tyranny has never been limited to individuals ruling others it is often groups ruling others and democracy is tyranny of the group. We are not a democratic republic but just a republic the method of electing representatives is not what controls our government the law is meant to control it which is what constitutes a republic. Something that many such as progressives have forgotten.

    LpDFLHB.jpg

  3. #173
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: New York does away with Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Of course it can. Its called a democratic republic. We are a democratic republic. We elect offcicials to represent us in office. That is representative democracy. We are also a republic, so therfore we are a democratic republic.



    You have a weird definition of tyranny.


    Ok.



    And I agree.
    sorry, to the founders a democratic republic is an oxymoron...they are two different forms of government.

    the word republic has changed since the founders, ...to mean anything than a monarchy.....the founders would not call the peoples republic of china, or the USSR a republic.

    power is dived in republics with no dominate factor..... in democratic forms in democratic forms, the people are they dominate factor.

  4. #174
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: New York does away with Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    sorry, to the founders a democratic republic is an oxymoron...they are two different forms of government.
    The founders seem to be wrong then.
    We elect leaders which is representative democracy.

    the word republic has changed since the founders, ...to mean anything than a monarchy.....the founders would not call the peoples republic of china, or the USSR a republic.
    In the classical since, yes a republic is different.


    power is dived in republics with no dominate factor..... in democratic forms in democratic forms, the people are they dominate factor.
    There has always been a dominate factor in government, hell the Consitution sets up a dominant factor, the Federal Government.


  5. #175
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: New York does away with Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    The founders seem to be wrong then.
    We elect leaders which is representative democracy.


    In the classical since, yes a republic is different.



    There has always been a dominate factor in government, hell the Constitution sets up a dominant factor, the Federal Government.
    no sorry in a republican form you elect also... however to don't get to direct elect everyone..only 1 of 3

    the founders modeled America on the roman republic, a classical republic

    no the federal government is not dominate, because the senate was controlled by the states.

  6. #176
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: New York does away with Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
    no sorry in a republican form you elect also...
    Huh?

    however to don't get to direct elect everyone..only 1 of 3
    2 of 3. Senator and Representative.

    the founders modeled America on the roman republic, a classical republic
    Not entirley. Sure they modeled off of it but they did not mirror it.

    no the federal government is not dominate, because the senate was controlled by the states.
    Just because the senators were elected by state congresses votes does not mean that the federal government was sitll not the dominate factor.


  7. #177
    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 sawdust View Post
    You couldn't possibly be more incorrect. The electoral college insures that presidential elections aren't dictated by the narrow interests of New York and California. It also gives a voice in the political process to the heartland.
    The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012.

    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 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States.

    The political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely agree on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have included five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

    In 2004, among the 11 most populous states, in the seven non-battleground states, % of winning party, and margin of “wasted” popular votes, from among the total 122 Million votes cast nationally:
    * Texas (62% Republican), 1,691,267
    * New York (59% Democratic), 1,192,436
    * Georgia (58% Republican), 544,634
    * North Carolina (56% Republican), 426,778
    * California (55% Democratic), 1,023,560
    * Illinois (55% Democratic), 513,342
    * New Jersey (53% Democratic), 211,826

    To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

  8. #178
    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
    Well, if the popular vote is so close that they need a recount, but a non-signatory state has, say , a 10% margin that wouldn't warrant a recount then how can the signatory states force the non-signatory state to spend state money on a recount?

    A popular vote system would require all votes in all states be recounted.
    A national popular vote would not require all votes in all states to be recounted.
    No state can force any state 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 would be much rarer than 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.

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

    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. Existing federal law (the "safe harbor" provision in section 5 of title 3 of the United States Code) specifies that a state's "final determination" of its presidential election returns is "conclusive"(if done in a timely manner and in accordance with laws that existed prior to Election Day).

    The National Popular Vote compact is patterned directly after existing federal law and requires each state to treat as "conclusive" each other state's "final determination" of its vote for President. No state has any power to examine or judge the presidential election returns of any other state under the National Popular Vote compact.

  9. #179
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:22 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: New York does away with Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by MrVicchio View Post
    You want it to go away for political reasons, which is why it's in place now. Sad.
    I want it to go away because I don't believe that where you live should dictate how much of a voice you have in the government.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  10. #180
    Mixed Government advocate
    Master PO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    93,000,000 miles from Earth where its very Hot
    Last Seen
    11-30-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    31,331

    Re: New York does away with Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Huh?


    2 of 3. Senator and Representative.


    Not entirley. Sure they modeled off of it but they did not mirror it.


    Just because the senators were elected by state congresses votes does not mean that the federal government was sitll not the dominate factor.
    i was talking about the founders government not the current one....which was republican, today it is less republican and more democratic...which is sad.

    rome had 3 positions elected, by different groups of people, that is the same as American government, the founders speak a lot of the roman republic....it was a good and stable government....democratic governments are bad and unstable.

Page 18 of 28 FirstFirst ... 81617181920 ... 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
  •