• 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

soot said:
Enjoy, enjoy, enjoy!!!
Click to expand...
More spewing by you. Figures.

For some reason I doubt it will stop. Prove me wrong.
 
Gaius46 said:
Thanks. Interesting story that I wasn't aware of (Though I am Sicilian and gratified that we actually did a war a some point in our history). I've been meaning to read more on Alcibiadas after I finish reading up on Belisarius.

I agree with you that democracy are problematic. Where we disagree is on the idea that popularly elected government - or part of government - makes that government or part democratic. Just because Senators are popularly elected and not appointed by their legislatures doesn't necessarily make the Senate a democratic institution (I don't think). And if it does, since legislatures are democratically elected and express the will of the people does that not too make Senators democratic? I don't know - it's one of the questions I'm trying to work out for myself.
Click to expand...


Madison who laid the foundation for the constitution, had been trying to get government changed, he wanted a new government instead of revising the articles, he wrote Jefferson ,who had many books, ...for information on governments.

Jefferson sent him books, and madsion read them, and found that the types of government that were in the world at that time were all failures, because the same ones of the past had failed.

all governments start out with good intentions, but in the end they become tyrannical.

Madison found that governments are also cylindrical....meaning they go around and around........they go from good to bad, fall, and then start over again......history shows us this.

he wanted a government to last.

monarchy rule of one..the monarch becomes a tyrant is time.

aristocracy/oligarchy, rule of a few, in time creates a ruling class, with everyone else a serf.

democracy, starts out good, but when the majority discovers it has the power....it votes itself money from the public tough, and creates laws which violates the rights of the minority, the mob is ruling...history shows this to.

our founders took all 3 types governments and pitted them against each other, creating checks and balance, because no one holds all the power to be tyrannical.

however because of the 17th, this shifted power, with the house being directly elected by the people, and a democracy, the people interest is secure, but the states power is gone, the senate is now a democracy directly elected, and the people control all of congress now, creating collective laws, talking away state powers, because the state is no longer able to stop it because the 17th took their voice away in the federal government, a check and balance of the constitution.

this has allowed the federal government to step outside of the constitution, and take over state powers, creating laws which factions/ special interest groups, obtain, and control our government.

Madison states in federalist 10 the democratic government have many factious combinations, because faction only has to seduce, beguile, and pursue 1 power in democratic government "the people", were as republican government, power is divided , and the interest of the house and the states are different making faction much less in republican government.

since the president is part of a party, and the federal government is far outside of the constitution, no longer limited....he is able to buy votes by promising the average citizen things [wealth redistribution, get the evil rich] while he plays favoritism to certain groups of people promising them subsides, laws which benefit them, and punish their enemies.

by turning over the vote of the electoral college to the people, this makes it a democratic vote also, and makes us a representative democracy, which violates the guarantee of the constitution of republican government article 4 section 4 , with divided power.

the founders hated democratic forms of government because they are unstable forms of government and do not last.....however it was essential that the people have a voice in American government, that is why we have the house....giving the people power to prevent those would would seek to install an aristocracy, or a monarchy over us.
 
Last edited:
Excon said:
More spewing by you. Figures.

For some reason I doubt it will stop. Prove me wrong.
Click to expand...

Have a super-duper weekend.
 
soot said:
An extra special weekend to you my good, good friend.
Click to expand...
You did it again. Will wonders never cease?
When are you going to change your socks?
 
Excon said:
You did it again. Will wonders never cease?
When are you going to change your socks?
Click to expand...

A superb weekend to you old bean.
 
Anthony60 said:
Now you are on to something! Those 3 votes have a value in a Presidential election. If we go to a popular vote, Wyoming is just a waste, any candidate that even considers going there would be wasting their time and money.

Now, Republicans hardly campaign in California, only if they have a shot at those 55 votes will they go there. But it's not because California doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.
 
I appreciate that New York is a high population state, but why would most moderate and relatively low population states want to give up their "power" in choosing a President? If the nationwide vote was the determining factor, you can bet candidates would simply campaign in California, Texas, Florida, New York, Illinois, etc. and about 40 states would be virtually ignored. Same logic would prevail in any change to the makeup of the Senate.

Personally, from the outside looking in, the American system with the Electoral College is one of the more interesting aspects of American politics and you'd be nuts to give it up.
 
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.

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.

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.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

Every vote already counts.

Why would President Obama go to Wyoming? He was not going to get many votes there
Why would Romney go to New York? He was not going to get many votes there.

If anything, Obama would spend far more time in California and Romney in the South, to drive up the voter turnout of people would likely be vote for them anyhow.
 
mvymvy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not a reason to go to a popular vote.

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

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)
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

That's called "tyranny of the majority.” We fought a revolution to avoid that.
 
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.
 
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
 
TheDemSocialist said:
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?
Click to expand...

the least populated states will cease to have a voice.
 
mtm1963 said:
the least populated states will cease to have a voice.
Click to expand...

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!
 
ernst barkmann said:
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
mvymvy said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
mvymvy said:
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.
Click to expand...

"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
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Would not matter. Would eliminate the whole electoral votes based on state populations.
Click to expand...

i believe each state gets a say in who is elected president of the USA.

if the presidential election is solely based on the national popular vote, rural America looses greatly and the big populous cities/metro areas win big time.
 
mtm1963 said:
i believe each state gets a say in who is elected president of the USA.
Click to expand...
Not if its decided by national popular vote?

if the presidential election is solely based on the national popular vote, rural America looses greatly and the big populous cities/metro areas win big time.
Click to expand...
And in the current system one piece of **** state like Florida can **** it all up.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Not if its decided by national popular vote?


And in the current system one piece of **** state like Florida can **** it all up.
Click to expand...

each state gets its say. i know you don't like that idea, but that's a fundamental thing that can't change.

the electoral college gives the states a voice by population(house members) and by their 2 senators in the electoral college.

it's 2014, not 2000!
 
mtm1963 said:
each state gets its say.
Click to expand...
That would defeat the purpose of the national popular vote.

i know you don't like that idea, but that's a fundamental thing that can't change.
Click to expand...
I disagree. We used to not elect senators on popular vote. But hey we got rid of that.


the electoral college gives the states a voice by population(house members) and by their 2 senators in the electoral college.

it's 2014, not 2000!
Click to expand...

And so does the national popular vote.
 
TheDemSocialist said:
Not if its decided by national popular vote?


And in the current system one piece of **** state like Florida can **** it all up.
Click to expand...

That didn't happen. A group of university people recounted every single vote from Florida and discovered that Bush's win was with an even greater margin. Time to abandon this old argument.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom