• 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

Excon said:
It isn't ineffective or outdated.

I think the main problem here is folks do not understand why our Republic was set up the way it was...
Click to expand...

I'm actually of the opinion that you're the one who doesn't understand why our Republic was set up the way it was.
 
mvymvy said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is a long way of saying, the compact means nothing. The Constitution gives the state the right to choose their electors anyway they want. Today when we vote we are voting for a slate of electors, not for the president although the presidential candidates names are on the ballot to simplify things. Still once a state chooses its electors, those electors can vote for whom ever they want which has happened in the past. But rogue electors are very rare these days.

It is pretty much like I said in a couple of post, for the most part the American Republic is dead. We are more of a direct democracy and becoming more so everyday except for old relics like the electoral college.
 
Reading deeper into this story is appears that the headline and reporting on this story is extremely misleading.

THis compact will, apparently, not take effect until 270 Electoral votes have been locked up in the deal. Once there are 270 EVs in this pact all the other state elections become meaningless because the pact EVs would be sufficient to determine the winner.

So no, New York hasn't done away with the Electoral College.
 
"THOSE THAT HOLD THE KEYS TO THE KINGDOM WILL BE A TYRANT"

in American government of the founders, power in divided up!

the house of representatives is a democracy it is a direct democratic vote of the people, and it presents the ............interest of the people

the senate is an aristocracy, it is a direct vote of the state legislatures, and it is non democratic vote of a few, it represents the.............. interest of the states

RIGHT THERE!..........power in divided into 2 parts.....NEITHER part, has all of the power...........no one------------> "holds the keys to the kingdom"

the president under the founders IS considered a monarch, to be elected by electors for the states......and those electors have in early American history been chosen by the 1.state legislatures, 2.chosen by a general election ticket of each state, 3.and chosen by districts of each state........however this has been changed by the politicians, who now chose the electors by party line.

the idea of the electoral college is for a few people of the states to elect the President in DECEMBER.

by having electors elect the president it makes it a non democratic vote......steering America clear of democratic government.


so you have 1 democratic vote for the house, and 2 non democratic votes for senate and the President, making it a republican form of government and not a democratic form.

since all three members of the government are elected by 3 different groups of people--------------"no one holds the keys to the kingdom"

since no one single group who gets elected .......holds the "KEYS"......no one can become a tyrant.

in democratic forms of government, the people hold the "keys to the kingdom", they are the dominate factor of democratic government, and are tyrants because they govern by Majority Rule.


the u.s. government of the founders is a republican form of government...know as ..."mixed government"[federalist 40 by James Madison]

Mixed government, also known as a mixed constitution, is a form of government that integrates elements of democracy, aristocracy, and monarchy. In a mixed government, some issues (often defined in a constitution) are decided by the majority of the people, some other issues by few, and some other issues by a single person (also often defined in a constitution). The idea is commonly treated as an antecedent of separation of powers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_government


ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS????
 
Last edited:
soot said:
I'm actually of the opinion that you're the one who doesn't understand why our Republic was set up the way it was.
Click to expand...
Hmmm? Making it personal off the bat, figures. :roll:

The purpose it was implemented for still serves today.
 
Excon said:
Hmmm? Making it personal off the bat, figures. :roll:
Click to expand...

Dude, telling you that I think you're wrong isn't a personal attack.

You've never told anyone around here that you think they're wrong?

The purpose it was implemented for still serves today.
Click to expand...

Yes and no.

There's been a lot of legislation and case law that has changed the manner in which it serves significantly.
 
mvymvy said:
Those "thinly populated agricultural southern states" were populated with slaves and their owners.
Click to expand...

Do you have a point?
 
Perotista said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sounds probable to me.
 
soot said:
Dude, telling you that I think you're wrong isn't a personal attack.
Click to expand...
First off, I said making it personal off the bat.
I said nothing about an attack.

soot said:
I'm actually of the opinion that you're the one who doesn't understand why our Republic was set up the way it was.
Click to expand...

The underlined is what makes it personal.
Which if I may point out, is different than saying you are of the opinion that my opinion is wrong, or that you think my opinion is wrong or that what I said is wrong.
Which of course addresses what was said, and not the person.
Which would be why I did not address any specific person when I said the following.
"I think the main problem here is folks do not understand why our Republic was set up the way it was"
Which I might add, has been demonstrated thought this thread.


soot said:
You've never told anyone around here that you think they're wrong?
Click to expand...
Of course I tell people they are wrong when they are. I usually say; Wrong! And if necessary, include why.


soot said:
Yes [...]
Click to expand...
Nough said. :mrgreen:


soot said:
There's been a lot of legislation and case law that has changed the manner in which it serves significantly.
Click to expand...
No. Not really.
But since you seem to think so, Get a postin' this legislation and case law that you thinks "changed the manner in which it serves significantly".
Legislation changing the manner in which it serves significantly. :roll: Oy Vey! :doh That is hilarious.
 
Excon said:
The underlined is what makes it personal.
Click to expand...

You made a comment.

In light of that comment I don't think that you personally understand what you're saying.

As long as you're not saying that's a personal attack, which is the way I interpreted your response, then we're good.

Nough said. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

WRONG!!!!

It (republicanism, indirect democracy, and etc...) was implemented by rich white male property owners (the Founding Fathers) in order to keep rich white male property owners rich, in charge, and in full possession of their property.

The "tyranny of the majority" that Tocqueville talked about, and the Founders understood as a threat, was the reason for it.

Legislation, case law, and judicial activism has taken a lot of the teeth out of what the Founders intended.

But since you seem to think so, Get a postin' this legislation and case law that you thinks "changed the manner in which it serves significantly".
Click to expand...

A perfect "case in point" is the federal income tax, another is universal suffrage, the welfare state is a third.

If you don't think that any of those (you can Google the actual laws yourself, if you must) has fundamentally changed the nature of the nation the Founders established then I seriously question your ability to think rationally.

They've all been end-runs around the proscription against a tyranny of the majority.

Note, I'm not arguing that things have changed for the better, nor am I arguing that they've changed for the worse, but if you think John Adams, Gouveneur Morris, Edward Routledge, James Wilson, Philip Schuyler, and the other more "conservative" Founding Fathers would recognize our nation today as the nation that they helped found - if you don't think they'd look at what we have and say to themselves, "Wow, they've changed things significantly", you're wrong.

Legislation changing the manner in which it serves significantly. :roll: Oy Vey! :doh That is hilarious.
Click to expand...

Yeah, hilarious.
 
sawdust said:
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.
Click to expand...

The electoral college does not prevent that at all, nor is that an issue at hand anymore.
 
Soupnazi630 said:
A nation cannot be a republic and a democracy at the same time and this nation is a republic.
Click to expand...
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.


Demacracy is nothing more than tyranny hence the complex electoral college.
Click to expand...
You have a weird definition of tyranny.

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.
Click to expand...
Ok.


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.
Click to expand...
And I agree.
 
Perotista said:
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.
Click to expand...
Direct democracy is when the people themselves vote on individual issues instead of representatives. We have always been a democratic republic that uses representative democracy.
 
soot said:
In light of that comment I don't think that you personally understand what you're saying.

As long as you're not saying that's a personal attack, which is the way I interpreted your response, then we're good.
Click to expand...
No we are not good.
You again made it personal.
The fact that you did it again strongly suggests that you meant it as an attack.
So I suggest you just stop.


soot said:
WRONG!!!!
Click to expand...
Yes you are wrong.


soot said:
It (republicanism, indirect democracy, and etc...) was implemented by rich white male property owners (the Founding Fathers) in order to keep rich white male property owners rich, in charge, and in full possession of their property.

The "tyranny of the majority" that Tocqueville talked about, and the Founders understood as a threat, was the reason for it.
Click to expand...
:doh
And?

We are talking specifically about the EC. It is indirect representation and there for state representation among the Union.
The State being a separate entity and all.
This hasn't changed.


soot said:
Legislation, case law, and judicial activism has taken a lot of the teeth out of what the Founders intended.
Click to expand...
We are talking specifically about the EC, and all you do is keep peddling this bs with out backing it up.


soot said:
A perfect "case in point" is the federal income tax, another is universal suffrage, the welfare state is a third.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Has nothing to do with the EC or it's purpose.


soot said:
If you don't think that any of those (you can Google the actual laws yourself, if you must) has fundamentally changed the nature of the nation the Founders established then I seriously question your ability to think rationally.

They've all been end-runs around the proscription against a tyranny of the majority.
Click to expand...
Figures you can't back up what you say so you tell the other person to google it. :doh :lamo

And again, this is specifically about the EC. Not everything else. Do try to stay focused.



soot said:
but if you think John Adams, Gouveneur Morris, Edward Routledge, James Wilson, Philip Schuyler, and the other more "conservative" Founding Fathers would recognize our nation today as the nation that they helped found - if you don't think they'd look at what we have and say to themselves, "Wow, they've changed things significantly", you're wrong.
Click to expand...
Wtf are you talking about?
Did anybody say any such thing to make such a comment/suggestion?


soot said:
Yeah, hilarious.
Click to expand...
Yeah hilarious. Especially as we are talking about the EC, and you are ranting about things other then.
 
Excon said:
No we are not good.
You again made it personal.
The fact that you did it again strongly suggests that you meant it as an attack.
So I suggest you just stop.
Click to expand...

I'll ask a mod to look into it.

It strikes me as preposterous that if you make a comment and I think you're wrong because you don't have a firm understanding of the topic under discussion that my saying so is a personal attack on you.

I can understand if I was calling you names or something, but to just say that you're wrong or you don't understand isn't a personal attack.

I'm going to drop this conversation with you until I can get some clarification from the "powers that be".
 
TheDemSocialist said:
What do you mean? They recount the ballots. Same way they do it now.
Click to expand...

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.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
The electoral college does not prevent that at all, nor is that an issue at hand anymore.
Click to expand...

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.
 
soot said:
It strikes me as preposterous that if you make a comment and I think you're wrong because you don't have a firm understanding of the topic under discussion that my saying so is a personal attack on you.
Click to expand...
I see you still wish to play ignorant. :doh
Excon said:
soot said:
I'm actually of the opinion that you're the one who doesn't understand why our Republic was set up the way it was.
Click to expand...

The underlined is what makes it personal.
Which if I may point out, is different than saying you are of the opinion that my opinion is wrong, or that you think my opinion is wrong or that what I said is wrong.
Which of course addresses what was said, and not the person.
Which would be why I did not address any specific person when I said the following.
"I think the main problem here is folks do not understand why our Republic was set up the way it was"
Which I might add, has been demonstrated thought this thread.
Click to expand...
It is all in the wording and you know it.

As I later said, I didn't think it was an attack, but it was personal.

But the fact that you later did it again, is highly suggestive that you meant it as a personal attack.

Regardless, no one can determine if that was what you meant or not.
But it is obvious that you are now just playing a game to deflect from your inability to support your claims.
Heck, you couldn't even stay focused on the EC.
 
jmotivator said:
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.
Click to expand...

The only way that the electoral college can go away in a unifying manner is through a constitutional amendment.
 
sawdust said:
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.
Click to expand...

Your right it guarantees its decided by Florida.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
TheDemSocialist said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ernst barkmann said:
sorry, to the founders a democratic republic is an oxymoron...they are two different forms of government.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
There has always been a dominate factor in government, hell the Consitution sets up a dominant factor, the Federal Government.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom