Page 27 of 28 FirstFirst ... 1725262728 LastLast
Results 261 to 270 of 277

Thread: New York does away with Electoral College

  1. #261
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,521

    Re: New York does away with Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by mvymvy View Post
    Wyoming will still have 3 votes.
    NOW, Wyoming is a waste. No candidate considers going there. It would be wasting their time and money.
    NOW, California is an equal waste. No candidate considers going there. It would be wasting their time and money.
    80% of states and voters are written off and taken for granted.

    The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of campaign attention was showered on voters in just ten states in 2012- and that in today's political climate, the swing states have become increasingly fewer and fixed.
    Not a reason to go to a popular vote.

    Where you live should not determine how much, if at all, your vote matters.
    A good reason not to have a NPV.

    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)
    I think your Constitution is missing a page...
    Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress...

    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.
    I see where you have made your mistake. These States change, some elections they will matter more, some less. But with a NPV, the same smaller States will never matter, and be left out of every Presidential election. Only the high population areas will matter, and the President will always be chosen by a minority of States, the same States, over and over.

    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 called "tyranny of the majority.” We fought a revolution to avoid that.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  2. #262
    Sage
    Anthony60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    Northern New Jersey
    Last Seen
    Today @ 05:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,521

    Re: New York does away with Electoral College

    You know what would be funny? We go to a popular vote, and then there is an election where the Republican wins the popular vote because he campaigned a lot in New York and California, getting many more votes than he would have in an EC election. And he would have lost the election because even though NY & Cali were close, he still would have lost all their electors. But since it was changed to a popular vote, he gets all their electors and wins. The left is so good at unforeseen consequences.
    "We have met the enemy and they are ours..." -- Oliver Hazard Perry
    "I don't want a piece of you... I want the whole thing!" -- Bob Barker

  3. #263
    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

    how about we return to the original electoral college.

    instead of letting the parties pick the electors, we let the people of the state elect the electors, like it used to be done in early America

  4. #264
    Educator
    mtm1963's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Tennessee
    Last Seen
    05-25-17 @ 04:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    1,067

    Re: New York does away with Electoral College

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    It is outdated!
    Just think of our founding. We were composed of 13 small and 13 large states jealous of each other for various reasons. Our country was spread along states that were very rural that was not connected by transportation or communication. We were paranoid of British influence in our elections. We were afraid of slaves as well. Hell we didnt even trust the poor to vote..



    So if we remove the electoral college what radical **** is going to happen?
    the least populated states will cease to have a voice.
    Go Vols

  5. #265
    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 mtm1963 View Post
    the least populated states will cease to have a voice.
    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.

    With National Popular Vote, when every popular vote counts equally, successful candidates will find a middle ground of policies appealing to the wide mainstream of America. Instead of playing mostly to local concerns in Ohio and Florida, candidates finally would have to form broader platforms for broad national support. Elections wouldn't be about winning a handful of battleground states.

    Now political clout comes from being among the handful of battleground states. 80% of states and voters are ignored by presidential campaigns.

    State winner-take-all laws negate any simplistic mathematical equations about the relative power of states based on their number of residents per electoral vote. Small state math means absolutely nothing to presidential campaigns and to presidents once in office.

    In the 25 smallest states in 2008, the Democratic and Republican popular vote was almost tied (9.9 million versus 9.8 million), as was the electoral vote (57 versus 58).

    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 later 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.

    Kerry won more electoral votes than Bush (21 versus 19) in the 12 least-populous non-battleground states, despite the fact that Bush won 650,421 popular votes compared to Kerry’s 444,115 votes. The reason is that the red states are redder than the blue states are blue. If the boundaries of the 13 least-populous states had been drawn recently, there would be accusations that they were a Democratic gerrymander.

    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.

    With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in only 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!

  6. #266
    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 ernst barkmann View Post
    how about we return to the original electoral college.

    instead of letting the parties pick the electors, we let the people of the state elect the electors, like it used to be done in early America
    In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

    With both the current system and National Popular Vote, the people of the state elect the electors.

  7. #267
    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

    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 in Article II, Section 1:
    “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors….”
    The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

    The 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 current statewide winner-take-all rule (used by 48 of the 50 states) is not in the Constitution. It was not the Founders’ choice (having been used by only three states in the nation’s first presidential election in 1789). It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention, and it was not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. ) It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The Founders were dead for decades before the winner-take-all rule became prevalent.

    Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

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

    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 Iowa, Ohio, Florida, and Virginia (the four 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.

    Iowa has four congressional districts (each, of course, with equal population). The presidential candidates campaigned approximately equally in each part of the state in the 2012 presidential election.

    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.

  8. #268
    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 mvymvy View Post
    In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

    With both the current system and National Popular Vote, the people of the state elect the electors.
    electors today are pick by a party line vote

    electors of the past were chosen by 3 ways....state wide by the people, by district, by the legislature itself.

    i myself have no interest in turning over the electoral college directly to the people, ..i dont even want the people electing senators by direct vote.

  9. #269
    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 mvymvy View Post

    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 Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators"

    under the constitution of the founders, the federal government has no authority in the life's liberty and property, of the American people....so how is the federal government going to grant anything to the people like voting...much less dictate to the states what to do......the constitution would have never be ratified..

    the constitution does not grant rights or privileges to the people.

    why do you keep trying to sell democracy to people?


    Democracy is the road to socialism.----Karl Marx

    Democracy is indispensable to socialism-- Vladimir Lenin

  10. #270
    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 mtm1963 View Post
    the least populated states will cease to have a voice.
    Would not matter. Would eliminate the whole electoral votes based on state populations.


Page 27 of 28 FirstFirst ... 1725262728 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
  •