• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New York does away with Electoral College

I can think of almost 400 million reasons why direct democracy is an awful idea.
 
I dont remember hearing anything along those lines.. Do you have anymore information along those lines?

Yes...I don't remember the exact number but the agreement doesn't go into effect until they basically get enough electoral votes to actually drive the elections.
 
These are the States that voted for the National Popular Vote Interstate agreement so far...

1 Maryland 10 April 10, 2007
2 New Jersey 14 January 13, 2008
3 Illinois 20 April 7, 2008
4 Hawaii 4 May 1, 2008
5 Washington 12 April 28, 2009
6 Massachusetts 11 August 4, 2010
7 District of Columbia 3 December 7, 2010
8 Vermont 3 April 22, 2011
9 California 55 August 8, 2011
10 Rhode Island 4 July 12, 2013
11 New York 29 April 15, 2014

Now class ... can anyone tell me what they immediately notice about this list?
 
These are the States that voted for the National Popular Vote Interstate agreement so far...

1 Maryland 10 April 10, 2007
2 New Jersey 14 January 13, 2008
3 Illinois 20 April 7, 2008
4 Hawaii 4 May 1, 2008
5 Washington 12 April 28, 2009
6 Massachusetts 11 August 4, 2010
7 District of Columbia 3 December 7, 2010
8 Vermont 3 April 22, 2011
9 California 55 August 8, 2011
10 Rhode Island 4 July 12, 2013
11 New York 29 April 15, 2014

Now class ... can anyone tell me what they immediately notice about this list?
That there is eleven of them.
:tongue4:
 
We still arent a direct democracy even if we elected someone to represent us. If we elect someone to represent us that means we are a representative democracy. Even if we directly elected the POTUS what is the problem with that? I mean the founders were not perfect by anyway, why is it so shocking to get rid of something that is ineffective and outdated?

Defending the Electoral College.

Prove it's ineffective and outdated.
 
These are the States that voted for the National Popular Vote Interstate agreement so far...

1 Maryland 10 April 10, 2007
2 New Jersey 14 January 13, 2008
3 Illinois 20 April 7, 2008
4 Hawaii 4 May 1, 2008
5 Washington 12 April 28, 2009
6 Massachusetts 11 August 4, 2010
7 District of Columbia 3 December 7, 2010
8 Vermont 3 April 22, 2011
9 California 55 August 8, 2011
10 Rhode Island 4 July 12, 2013
11 New York 29 April 15, 2014

Now class ... can anyone tell me what they immediately notice about this list?

Liberal
 
Until a Conservative gets 51% of the vote, then you'll be begging for the electoral college to be applied.

And you'll be screaming about the injustice of the Electoral College.
 
On this thread, NY electoral votes will go to whichever candidate got the most individual votes nationally regardless of how NY voted.

Would that include if the Republican or a ticket other than Democrat won the national vote? This is so gona backfire on those twits.
 
Democracy is simply a step toward totalitarianism. The sad part is that most people won't realize that we've stepped off that cliff even after we hit bottom.

-------------^^^

Worth repeating over and over.... QFT
 
We still arent a direct democracy even if we elected someone to represent us. If we elect someone to represent us that means we are a representative democracy.
Even if we directly elected the POTUS what is the problem with that?
I mean the founders were not perfect by anyway, why is it so shocking to get rid of something that is ineffective and outdated?

Because the State representatives are close to the people they represent while the POTUS is supposed to represent everyone in every State, not just the large liberal population centers dependent on the Government as represented by the 11 states listed above.

Granted, the guy we have now is doing that very thing but the Electoral College was an attempt to mitigate that.
 
So we direclty elect our senators and representative but if we elect the POTUS, the oh Christ we are on our way to totalitarianism! Please Lutherf with our separation of power and checks and balances in place, please explain how you reach this conclusion...

It's obvious you do not appreciate the wisdom of the Founders. To do away with the Electoral College would be a disaster. Without it, the elections could be won by major cities with large populations and the rural areas would have no say. Fly-over country would be just that for all politicians running for office & attempting to get their pet bills passed. It would be equivalent to mob rule. For as authoritarian as our federal government has become it is rather a bad joke for you to claim separation of powers and checks and balances are in place when they are trampled and ignored on a regular basis.
 
It's obvious you do not appreciate the wisdom of the Founders. To do away with the Electoral College would be disasterous. Without it, the elections could be won by major cities with large populations and the rural areas would have no say. Fly-over country would be just that for all politicians running for office & attempting to get their pet bills passed

Great point. However this shows how what hypocrisy the progressive left has.... they squawk endlessly about how requiring ID to vote disenfranchises people, yet they are all too willing to let major cities which surprise, are mostly liberal, disenfranchise rural areas. It's so obtuse and obvious it's laughable if they all weren't so serious about killing the EC.
 
Would that include if the Republican or a ticket other than Democrat won the national vote? This is so gona backfire on those twits.

Yes, it cedes the selection of electors from the majority of the citizens of a state to the will of the national vote. The Electoral College is an elegant system for a republic except for those that don't like the results. This initiative is about the only way to distort the intention of the Electoral College without an actual repeal. Even if it passes enough states it is doomed to fail.
 
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.

Hold your horses. Neither New York nor any other state will be assigning their electors, based on popular vote, until enough states have signed on to equal or surpass 270 electoral votes. So I doubt this will happen in 2016, but there is a strong chance it will happen in 2020.
 
Hold your horses. Neither New York nor any other state will be assigning their electors, based on popular vote, until enough states have signed on to equal or surpass 270 electoral votes. So I doubt this will happen in 2016, but there is a strong chance it will happen in 2020.

They won't reach 270.
 
Yes, it cedes the selection of electors from the majority of the citizens of a state to the will of the national vote. The Electoral College is an elegant system for a republic except for those that don't like the results. This initiative is about the only way to distort the intention of the Electoral College without an actual repeal. Even if it passes enough states it is doomed to fail.

The electoral college gives a voice to all Americans from all parts of the country, not just those in the most densely populated areas. The needs of the United States are far more diverse than just what Los Angeles and New York City require.
 
The electoral college gives a voice to all Americans from all parts of the country, not just those in the most densely populated areas. The needs of the United States are far more diverse than just what Los Angeles and New York City require.

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.

Where you live should not determine how much, if at all, your vote matters.

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.

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.

With National Popular Vote, every voter would be equal. Candidates would reallocate their time, the money they raise, and their ad buys to no longer ignore 80% of the states and voters.

With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome.

16% of Americans live in rural areas. None of the 10 most rural states matter now.

The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as far down as Arlington, TX) is only 15% of the population of the United States.

Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.

If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
 
They won't reach 270.
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%.

The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers in 22 rural, small, medium, and large states with 250 electoral votes.

NationalPopularVote
 
Yes, it cedes the selection of electors from the majority of the citizens of a state to the will of the national vote. The Electoral College is an elegant system for a republic except for those that don't like the results. This initiative is about the only way to distort the intention of the Electoral College without an actual repeal. Even if it passes enough states it is doomed to fail.

The presidential election system, using the 48 state winner-take-all method or district winner method of awarding electoral votes, that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers. It is the product of decades of 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 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. This is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

With the current system of electing the President, none of the states requires that a presidential candidate receive anything more than the most popular votes in order to receive all of the state's or district’s electoral votes.

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!

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 Constitution does not prohibit any of the methods that were debated and rejected. Indeed, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors using two of the rejected methods in the nation's first presidential election in 1789 (i.e., appointment by the legislature and by the governor and his cabinet). Presidential electors were appointed by state legislatures for almost a century.

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding the state's electoral votes.
 
It's obvious you do not appreciate the wisdom of the Founders. To do away with the Electoral College would be a disaster. Without it, the elections could be won by major cities with large populations and the rural areas would have no say. Fly-over country would be just that for all politicians running for office & attempting to get their pet bills passed. It would be equivalent to mob rule. For as authoritarian as our federal government has become it is rather a bad joke for you to claim separation of powers and checks and balances are in place when they are trampled and ignored on a regular basis.

National Popular Vote does not do away with the Electoral College.

In 1789, only 3 states used the "winner-take-all" system based on the statewide popular vote. Similar laws in other states only became prevalent decades after the deaths of the Founding Fathers. 2 states do not use the system.

Fly over country is FLOWN OVER. Ignored. Politically irrelevant. That's what it means.

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.

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.

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 and would be 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).

National Popular Vote did not invent popular elections. Having election results determined by the candidate getting the most individual votes is not some scary, untested idea loaded with unintended consequences.
 
95% of the U.S. population in 1790 lived in places of less than 2,500 people.
It is unlikely that the Founding Fathers were concerned about big cities in presidential elections.
 
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 voter, 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 College 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 and the majority of Electoral College 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.
 
Back
Top Bottom