• 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

Instead of getting rid of the electoral college why not put a stop to gerry mandering? That's where the problem lies. Not the electoral college. In today's day and age its not impossible to stop gerry mandering. We have a census every 10 years. Use it to define a districts lines, not politicians.
 
So instead of winner take all how about let the winners of the state get the 2 extra electors and the rest of the electors of the state are elected by the district vote?

Yeah, this is the bizarre thing about this dumb plan. They could have simply had each state in the pact agree to divide their EVs based on state results and then the people of that state would still have their vote counted. As they have it now every citizen of every other state has, essentially, two votes in every election, one placed for their state's EVs, the other vote for this pact's EVs.
 
This is great. I can't wait until enough states sign it that they reach the 270 needed for it to take effect. I never thought I'd see the electoral college go away, but it's looking like I might get to after all.
You want it to go away for political reasons, which is why it's in place now. Sad.
 
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 The electoral college is outdated and irrational with our political climate and system.

You hit the nail on the hit if we were a democracy. We are a Republic made up of the several states. But we have been heading more and more towards a direct democracy since the passage of the 17th amendment the erosion of state powers by the federal government. One of the reason our founding fathers and framers choose a republic was they considered it just as bad facing absolute tyranny from a monarch, dictator, despot and the same from the majority over the minority.

They also left it to each individual state legislature to determine how each state choose their electors, read Article II, Section 1. In fact in the 1792 election only 6 states out of 15 chose their electors by any form of popular vote. State legislatures was the rule of the day in choosing their state electors. Those 6 states remained the only state to have some form of popular vote until 1804 when 5 more states began using a form of popular voting for president to choose their electors. then it was 11 out of 17 states. But by 1812 the idea of popular voting fell and only 9 of 18 states used a form of popular voting. By 1824 the figure was 15 out of 24 states using a form of popular voting. Even in the 1832 election Delaware and South Carolina state legislatures decided whom their electors would vote for. It wasn't until 1868 that finally all states used some form of popular vote to decide whom their electors would be.

Even today Nebraska and Maine award their electors a little different than from the winner take all of the other 48 states. They award one elector per the winner of a congressional district and the final two to whom ever wins the state. Thus Nebraska in 2008 cast 4 Electoral votes for McCain and one for Obama as Obama won one of Nebraska's Congressional districts. So states still can decide how their electors will be chosen.
 
Instead of getting rid of the electoral college why not put a stop to gerry mandering? That's where the problem lies. Not the electoral college. In today's day and age its not impossible to stop gerry mandering. We have a census every 10 years. Use it to define a districts lines, not politicians.

Kal, stop asking for impossibles. Every political party has used this, and will use this. The real issue isn't what the politicians do. It's what the unwashed masses of stupidity allow them to do.

When you get that truth, you'll see gerry mandering is a minor part of the problem.
 
Kal, stop asking for impossibles. Every political party has used this, and will use this. The real issue isn't what the politicians do. It's what the unwashed masses of stupidity allow them to do.

When you get that truth, you'll see gerry mandering is a minor part of the problem.

Stupid people voting is definately a problem. But nothing can change that except those people. :shrug: But that is going to happen regardless of the electoral college or straight democracy elected people.
 
So instead of winner take all how about let the winners of the state get the 2 extra electors and the rest of the electors of the state are elected by the district vote?

Nebraska and Maine do this already. Each state can decide how to elect or chose their electors in anyway them so deem. Until 1868 there were still some state legislatures choosing their electors without any popular voting.
 
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.

Florida was only important in 2000 because Al Gore failed to win his home state of Tennessee. If Gore had won there, Florida wouldn't have meant beans. Then there was the role the media played in Florida, first announcing Gore had won the state when in the Florida panhandle its polls were still open. The panhandle is deeply Republican, so how many more votes Bush might have gotten there that because of the announcement the Gore had won Florida, they just stayed home is unknown and impossible to figure. Then the media changed their minds about Florida and called it for Bush in the wee morning hours before Florida went to their recount the next day.

Needless to say, Florida was all messed up for a number of reasons. As for doing away with the electoral college, it is probably the lone vestage we have left as far as being a Republic of the several states vs. a direct democracy.
 
Nebraska and Maine do this already. Each state can decide how to elect or chose their electors in anyway them so deem. Until 1868 there were still some state legislatures choosing their electors without any popular voting.

I know this but with the popular voting nonsense an alternative is needed. I would think the compromise be keeping the electoral college but do away with winner take all and gerrymandering. Then the problem of representatives drawing their own districts goes the way of the dodo bird.
 
From Websters 1828 dictionary -

Republic
1. A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.


The definition, which was operative during the drafting of our constitution and which we can assume is the definition the drafters used, says nothing about how our representatives or the executive are chosen.

As far as I can tell the term representative democracy didn't even exist at the time of the drafting of the Constitution.

I'd also point out that our representatives are constrained by the Constitution not by the manner in which they are chosen.

i typed a very long reply to you, and in trying to post it, i lost all the info...making be sick
 
From Websters 1828 dictionary -

Republic
1. A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.


The definition, which was operative during the drafting of our constitution and which we can assume is the definition the drafters used, says nothing about how our representatives or the executive are chosen.

As far as I can tell the term representative democracy didn't even exist at the time of the drafting of the Constitution.

I'd also point out that our representatives are constrained by the Constitution not by the manner in which they are chosen.

i dont know if i will type is again...but i will tell you ..to the founders a democratic republic is a oxymoron.

the word "republic" has changed since the founders..today having a different meaning
 
I just love when today's political hacks decide that they are able to come up with a better system than the founders. They usually come up with something stupid, something that favors them, something that hurts the country, like this.
 
Stupid people voting is definately a problem. But nothing can change that except those people. :shrug: But that is going to happen regardless of the electoral college or straight democracy elected people.

Straight democracy will merely enhance the stupidity. Just like with allowing the "people" to vote for senators, it's a bad idea to change the EC in favor a DD system. It's like history speaks and falls on the ears of arrogant fools, this cycle repeats itself down through the ages.
 
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

Why are leftwingers the ones always pushing this so hard on this forum then?
 
From Websters 1828 dictionary -

Republic
1. A commonwealth; a state in which the exercise of the sovereign power is lodged in representatives elected by the people. In modern usage, it differs from a democracy or democratic state, in which the people exercise the powers of sovereignty in person. Yet the democracies of Greece are often called republics.


The definition, which was operative during the drafting of our constitution and which we can assume is the definition the drafters used, says nothing about how our representatives or the executive are chosen.

As far as I can tell the term representative democracy didn't even exist at the time of the drafting of the Constitution.

I'd also point out that our representatives are constrained by the Constitution not by the manner in which they are chosen.


what is a republican form of government,?....it is a mixed government.[federalist 40]

what is mixed government?..... it is a monarchy, aristocracy, and a democracy rolled into 1 government[American government], with 2 non democratic votes and 1 democratic vote...making it republican.

the electoral college, and the senate are non democratic votes, vs the 1 democratic vote of the house.

what is the difference, between a republican form of government and a democratic form?........a republican form has NO dominate factor, vs a dominate factor in democratic forms which is "the people".

to the founders a "democratic republic" is an oxymoron, ......because no form of government exist in 1787......a republican form and a democratic form are conflicting forms of government.

the founders created American government on the Roman Republic which was a good and stable form of government, were as democratic governments are bad and unstable forms of government.

the word "republic" has changed since the founders created the constitution, in 1789 the french revolution was a democratic movement of the people ,however they called France a republic, which it was not, ...however again the term stuck, and republic today means anything which is not a monarchy.

you see the people's republic of china, the USSR, these are not republics to the founders.

in constitutional law, all states and the federal government must be republican in their form, ...to be anything other than republican is unconstitutional, and any state changing it form of government to any other form would have to leave the union, this is constitutional law.

however constitutional law is not being followed.


i welcome questions!
 
Last edited:
I know this but with the popular voting nonsense an alternative is needed. I would think the compromise be keeping the electoral college but do away with winner take all and gerrymandering. Then the problem of representatives drawing their own districts goes the way of the dodo bird.

I agree with the gerrymanders as my signature line states. Until gerrymandering is completely done away with, we will never have fair elections in this country. We complain about other nations and the way they handle their elections, but our is really corrupt, but that corruption is usually kept below the horizon. Our elected officials and candidates as a whole are bought, bribed is another word in the form of campaign cash.

I think we have gone too far down the road to a direct democracy to turn back. The Republic is dead. Doing away with the electoral college only confirms that death. The people had their voice in the House of Representatives nationally and with all their state and local officials. The states were suppose to have their voice in the senate, pretty much done away with the 17th amendment and it is the states that cast their votes for the president contrary to popular belief.

I think this compact is a fad, even if more states join it won't last. I could go into it more, but would take too much typing.
 
Last edited:
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.

A nation cannot be a republic and a democracy at the same time and this nation is a republic.

Demacracy is nothing more than tyranny hence the complex electoral college.

Many have called for the abolition of the EC for the last two centuries. According to one historian over two hundred amendments have been proposed in that time and all of them defeated.

I may be wrong but I'm confident that NY and other states are stuck with the EC until the constitution is amended they may not simply pledge their votes to whom ever.
 
I know this but with the popular voting nonsense an alternative is needed. I would think the compromise be keeping the electoral college but do away with winner take all and gerrymandering. Then the problem of representatives drawing their own districts goes the way of the dodo bird.

Okay, I have to explain this. Why I do not think this compact will not last and is a fad. All ten states are solid Democratic states that have agree with this, not one swing state or Republican state. Now keep in mind in the Electoral College there are what I call trustworthy states, states one party or the other can be counted on as pretty much automatically casting their electorate votes to that party. There are 43 of these states and DC. 7 state are swing or toss up states.

Today the Democrats have 256 Electoral votes in their trustworthy column, although a couple of states like Pennsylvania and Michigan might be argued over. The Republicans have only 191 electoral votes in their trustworthy states with the remaining electoral votes coming from the swing/tossup states. 270 needed to win.

Let’s say in 2016 Jeb Bush defeats Hillary Clinton by give or take one million votes in the popular vote total. But Hillary won all the Democrats trustworthy states plus Virginia and Iowa which would give Hillary a 275-261 victory in the Electoral College. Do you really expect heavily Democratic New York or California, Maryland, New Jersey, D.C., or any of the other states that are members of this compact to actually give all their electoral votes to Jeb Bush if he won the popular vote, but lost in those states? I do not think so. If they did the people of those states, the loyal Democratic voters would be up in arms, rioting in the streets, etc. etc. etc.

I think as long as a Democrat wins the popular vote, the compact holds. If a Republican won the popular vote as in the example above, that compact would go the way of the old Warsaw Pact.
 
Last edited:
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?

The electoral collage was crafted so that heavily populated northern industrial states couldn't abuse thinly populated agricultural southern states. It's not outdated and serves the same useful purpose today.
 
The electoral collage was crafted so that heavily populated northern industrial states couldn't abuse thinly populated agricultural southern states. It's not outdated and serves the same useful purpose today.

Those "thinly populated agricultural southern states" were populated with slaves and their owners.
 
Those "thinly populated agricultural southern states" were populated with slaves and their owners.

the electoral college was created, as to not be a .........democratic vote.

the founders created a republican form of government ,not a democratic form

our American republic was to have ONLY 1 democratic element of the government...the House.

this prevent democracy from taking hold in America, and government destroying itself.

democratic forms of government are bad and unstable forms of government.

John Adams An Essay on Man's Lust for Power
Categories: Democracy
Date: August 29, 1763
[D]emocracy will soon degenerate into an anarchy, such an anarchy that every man will do what is right in his own eyes and no man's life or property or reputation or liberty will be secure, and every one of these will soon mould itself into a system of subordination of all the moral virtues and intellectual abilities, all the powers of wealth, beauty, wit and science, to the wanton pleasures, the capricious will, and the execrable cruelty of one or a very few.

John Adams letter to John Taylor
Categories: Democracy
Date: April 15, 1814
Remember democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.

James Madison The Federalist Papers Federalist No. 10
Categories: Democracy
Date: November 23, 1787
[D]emocracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security, or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.


Fisher Ames speech in the Massachusetts Ratifying Convention
Categories: Democracy
Date: January 15, 1788
The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.


Alexander Hamilton Speech at the Constitutional Convention
Categories: Democracy, Liberty / Freedom, Republican Government
Date: June 26, 1787
We are now forming a republican government. Ideal liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments.
 
Okay, I have to explain this. Why I do not think this compact will not last and is a fad. All ten states are solid Democratic states that have agree with this, not one swing state or Republican state. Now keep in mind in the Electoral College there are what I call trustworthy states, states one party or the other can be counted on as pretty much automatically casting their electorate votes to that party. There are 43 of these states and DC. 7 state are swing or toss up states.

Today the Democrats have 256 Electoral votes in their trustworthy column, although a couple of states like Pennsylvania and Michigan might be argued over. The Republicans have only 191 electoral votes in their trustworthy states with the remaining electoral votes coming from the swing/tossup states. 270 needed to win.

Let’s say in 2016 Jeb Bush defeats Hillary Clinton by give or take one million votes in the popular vote total. But Hillary won all the Democrats trustworthy states plus Virginia and Iowa which would give Hillary a 275-261 victory in the Electoral College. Do you really expect heavily Democratic New York or California, Maryland, New Jersey, D.C., or any of the other states that are members of this compact to actually give all their electoral votes to Jeb Bush if he won the popular vote, but lost in those states? I do not think so. If they did the people of those states, the loyal Democratic voters would be up in arms, rioting in the streets, etc. etc. etc.

I think as long as a Democrat wins the popular vote, the compact holds. If a Republican won the popular vote as in the example above, that compact would go the way of the old Warsaw Pact.

On February 12, 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 28–18 margin.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers, in 22 rural, small, medium, and large population states, including one house in the recent battleground states of Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and both houses in Colorado (9) .
The bill has passed 33 state legislative chambers, in 22 small, medium-small, medium, and large states.

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 National Popular Vote bill says: "Any member state may withdraw from this agreement, except that a withdrawal occurring six months or less before the end of a President’s term shall not become effective until a President or Vice President shall have been qualified to serve the next term."

Any attempt by a state to pull out of the compact in violation of its terms would violate the Impairments Clause of the U.S. Constitution and would be void. Such an attempt would also violate existing federal law. Compliance would be enforced by Federal court action

The National Popular Vote compact is, first of all, a state law. It is a state law that would govern the manner of choosing presidential electors. A Secretary of State may not ignore or override the National Popular Vote law any more than he or she may ignore or override the winner-take-all method that is currently the law in 48 states.

There has never been a court decision allowing a state to withdraw from an interstate compact without following the procedure for withdrawal specified by the compact. Indeed, courts have consistently rebuffed the occasional (sometimes creative) attempts by states to evade their obligations under interstate compacts

An interstate compact is not a mere “handshake” agreement. If a state wants to rely on the goodwill and graciousness of other states to follow certain policies, it can simply enact its own state law and hope that other states decide to act in an identical manner. If a state wants a legally binding and enforceable mechanism by which it agrees to undertake certain specified actions only if other states agree to take other specified actions, it enters into an interstate compact.

Interstate compacts are supported by over two centuries of settled law guaranteeing enforceability. Interstate compacts exist because the states are sovereign. If there were no Compacts Clause in the U.S. Constitution, a state would have no way to enter into a legally binding contract with another state. The Compacts Clause, supported by the Impairments Clause, provides a way for a state to enter into a contract with other states and be assured of the enforceability of the obligations undertaken by its sister states. The enforceability of interstate compacts under the Impairments Clause is precisely the reason why sovereign states enter into interstate compacts. Without the Compacts Clause and the Impairments Clause, any contractual agreement among the states would be, in fact, no more than a handshake.
 
the electoral college was created, as to not be a .........democratic vote.

the founders created a republican form of government ,not a democratic form

our American republic was to have ONLY 1 democratic element of the government...the House.

this prevent democracy from taking hold in America, and government destroying itself.

democratic forms of government are bad and unstable forms of government.

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.
 
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.


sorry wrong....

the government of the u.s. will never be a pure/direct democracy.

it has moved towards representative democracy, away from a republic of mixed government, were power is divided......

under a national popular vote........power is not divided............which is what you do not realize.

in democratic forms of government the people are the dominate factor......in a republic of the founders.........there is no dominate factor.
 
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.

Your title is just a bit misleading, as New York - or any other state - cannot get rid of the Electoral College. However, I do agree that the popular vote for the office of President should be how the winner is determined. It will never happen because the Senators from the small states would never ratify any constitutional amendme3nt abolishing it.
 
Back
Top Bottom