NationStates Jolt Archive

...following on from the Washington State gets it right.

O'Malley Signs Bill to Bypass Electoral College

By John Wagner
Published April 10th 2007 in The Washington Post

Gov. Martin O'Malley (D) signed a bill into law today that makes Maryland the first state in the nation to join a movement to bypass the Electoral College and elect U.S. presidents by national popular vote.

The bill, passed in a session of the General Assembly that concluded yesterday, would award the state's 10 electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide -- not statewide. The agreement would not take effect until states that cumulatively hold 270 electoral votes -- the number needed to win a presidential election -- sign on.

Supporters of the measure, which is being championed by a national nonprofit group, say deciding elections by popular vote would give candidates reason to campaign nationwide and not concentrate their efforts in "battleground" states, such as Florida and Ohio, that have dominated recent elections.

Moreover, the supporters argue, such a system would prevent rare occasions, such as President Bush's 2000 victory over Al Gore, in which a candidate who wins the popular vote does not prevail in the electoral college, a fixture in U.S. elections since the nation's founding.

During debate, opponents argued election by popular vote could just switch the target for candidates from closely divided states to large cities with many voters -- a scenario that would not necessarily empower Maryland. And they suggested a national recount could be chaotic.

The bill was among more than 100 signed by O'Malley in the first of four ceremonies scheduled in coming weeks. Other legislation established a sub-cabinet to coordinate the impact of the national Base Realignment and Closure process on Maryland and set up a government accountability program called StateStat.

Most of the higher-profile legislation that passed late in the 90-day session will be signed at future ceremonies. The session ended last night.

"This was a successful session," O'Malley said at the outset of the ceremony. "This is a session where we found consensus in order to advance the common good."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041000852.html

So, hopefully, things like this could become a thing of the past:

The individual citizen has no federal constitutional right to vote for electors for the President of the United States unless and until the state legislature chooses a statewide election as the means to implement its power to appoint members of the electoral college.

Yay or nay?

All hail Maryland.

During debate, opponents argued election by popular vote could just switch the target for candidates from closely divided states to large cities with many voters -- a scenario that would not necessarily empower Maryland. And they suggested a national recount could be chaotic.
The detractors of "making every vote count" have no real argument. The logic of Maryland that the candidates would have to campaign in more places than battleground states to get a victory does not go away. If the candidates only go to the biggest cities in the country, not a state, then they will fall into the same hole they would if they only went to certain states to campaign because other voters from other states can decide not to vote for them and their vote will still count.

And if the voting system wasn't full of incompetent fuckups, a national recount would be no more chaotic than the census, and the census involves far, far more people than who vote in national elections.

I've been an advocate for this sort of reform since I first heard about it a year or two ago. I think it's a brilliant way to end run the Constitution, and an easier way to pass it than a Constitutional amendment. Good on you Maryland.

One of the main reasons for this is to stop the scenario where candidates spend most of their time in a select few states. Well under this method candidates will just spend most of their time in a select few big cities. So not really fixing the problem.

...following on from the Washington State gets it right.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041000852.html

So, hopefully, things like this could become a thing of the past:



Yay or nay?

Kewl. Now us liberal wankers can get our say. Bay Staters, on!

One of the main reasons for this is to stop the scenario where candidates spend most of their time in a select few states. Well under this method candidates will just spend most of their time in a select few big cities. So not really fixing the problem.

Not really. What it will change is the strategy. Now, if you're a Republican living in California, there will be a reason for your candidates to drive the vote there, and stop in for more than money. Or New York. Same thing if you're a Democrat in Texas. Or South Dakota. Since every vote will matter, political parties will then have to drive votes in every constituency, because the total will matter.

Yes, there is the possibility that candidates will focus their efforts in the cities only, simply because there are more candidates per square mile than anywhere else. But in a nationwide campaign, that's a very limited strategy, very short-sighted, and one that a creative opponent could exploit. If I were running a nationwide campaign, I certainly wouldn't dump all my eggs in the big city basket, and I'm a liberal, so that's ostensibly where my power base would be.

One of the main reasons for this is to stop the scenario where candidates spend most of their time in a select few states. Well under this method candidates will just spend most of their time in a select few big cities. So not really fixing the problem.
Wrong. With every vote counting, voters can penalize candidates playing favorites with certain cities. Impossible in the current system where die-hard voters of one group nullify any other votes in the state. Which is why candidates don't go there - they know they don't have to in order to win the state. If they want to win more votes, they will go more places.

Actually the larger cities would make more sense for the canidate to go and speak. Only because the media is there for everyone to watch if they cant make it to the rally or debate. The problem with what we ahve today is it feels like my vote doesnt mean a damn thing. Plus i think this would open up more possiblities of third parties coming to power more easily too.
I say good job Maryland, hopefully more states and the rest of the nation will d more of a direct vote system someday.

The problem with what we ahve today is it feels like my vote doesnt mean a damn thing.
With the electoral college system, it literally doesn't if you arn't in the majority so people need to feel like that.

...following on from the Washington State gets it right.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041000852.html

So, hopefully, things like this could become a thing of the past:



Yay or nay?

This bill is illegal under the US Constitution so I vote nay.

One of the main reasons for this is to stop the scenario where candidates spend most of their time in a select few states. Well under this method candidates will just spend most of their time in a select few big cities. So not really fixing the problem.

You are indeed right. I do not live in a populated area. Why should I support this when it means that my vote will not count at all?

It would take too much time and effort to change, and it's not fundamentally undemocratic or unjust, so why bother?

It would take too much time and effort to change, and it's not fundamentally undemocratic or unjust, so why bother?

Because red states outnumber blue states :D

It would take too much time and effort to change,
No, it wouldn't.

and it's not fundamentally undemocratic or unjust,
Yes, it is.

You are indeed right. I do not live in a populated area. Why should I support this when it means that my vote will not count at all?
Do you live in a battleground state? Do you live in a state where you are not in the majority voting opinion?
If you answer the first question yes, candidates won't be going there anyway unless they are assured to get elected there then they just go for shits and giggles.
If you answer yes to the second, your vote doesn't count.

Because red states outnumber blue states
Obviously because otherwise right-wingers wouldn't get all fucking stupid and would realize they have brethren in blue states whose votes would now count.

It doesn't matter how many sign on, the Constitution says you can't do it. Sorry, Maryland.

This bill is illegal under the US Constitution so I vote nay.
Name the section that says states can't proportion their electoral votes however they want. Bet you can't.

It doesn't matter how many sign on, the Constitution says you can't do it. Sorry, Maryland.
Same direction to you there, skippy.

This bill is illegal under the US Constitution so I vote nay.

Pray, explain to us how it is, so that we may mock you openly for not understanding Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Pray, explain to us how it is, so that we may mock you openly for not understanding Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution.

Oh I understand it completely. However, didn't the state of Colorado try to pull something like this last election?

Oh I understand it completely. However, didn't the state of Colorado try to pull something like this last election?

Obviously you don't. Look carefully at the proposal and the legislation Maryland passed, then look at Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, and then explain how it's unconstitutional.

No, it wouldn't.


Yes, it is.



I rather disagree, for to develop a system devised solely around popular vote count, we would be forced to totally redevelop th existing electoral infrastructure of the United States. This would be no small task, we would have to develop apolitical, yet gigantic, federal agencies to be able to handle the electoral system. We'd have to recentralize the material infrastructure from county and state control to federal control. It would not be an easy process, it would be extremely time consuming, and seeing how many problems we've had with the HAVA, I doubt it would be finished in under four years.

Second, the system is rather democratic, permitting the people far more influence in the election of the President, than the election of Prime Ministers and Chancellors in most parliamentary democracies.

Third, it forces candidates to travel. Now, Ohio and Florida are the battleground states, under a popular vote system, areas with higher population densities become the battlegrounds, with the rest of the country being neglected.

I like this from April 11, 2007 WP:

I am no expert on the history of the Constitution, but I have to believe that the Framers put more thought into presidential elections than did the guy who invented scratch-off lottery tickets. After all, they faced the problems of creating a nation from a group of independent states.

The bill passed by the Maryland legislature would render presidential elections a sham in my state. All our votes would be cast for a candidate favored elsewhere -- an act of disenfranchisement. In 2004, that candidate would have been George W. Bush.

CHARLES W. CLARK

Wheaton

The bill, one of 105 signed by the Democratic governor the day after the General Assembly adjourned, makes Maryland the first in the nation to agree to let the national popular vote trump statewide preference. It would not take effect until states that cumulatively hold 270 electoral votes -- the number needed to win a presidential election -- agree to do the same.

The underlined portion is what I disagree with. If the state votes for say A democratic candidate and the Republican Candidate wins, that just tosses out the votes for the Democratic Candidate. How is that fair to those voters?

From 3 days ago:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041000852.html

I rather disagree, for to develop a system devised solely around popular vote count, we would be forced to totally redevelop th existing electoral infrastructure of the United States. This would be no small task, we would have to develop apolitical, yet gigantic, federal agencies to be able to handle the electoral system. We'd have to recentralize the material infrastructure from county and state control to federal control. It would not be an easy process, it would be extremely time consuming, and seeing how many problems we've had with the HAVA, I doubt it would be finished in under four years.
State and local systems for handling the federal election are obviously inept. All we need to do is remove the Electoral College and run a popular vote. Then have the voting system standardized (none of this everywhere gets a different way to vote! bullshit). After that all we would have to do is count the votes. This is over generalized of course. But the local system with varying ways of voting and far too many invested individuals involved in the higher processes of the system is in no way beneficial to the election process.

Second, the system is rather democratic, permitting the people far more influence in the election of the President, than the election of Prime Ministers and Chancellors in most parliamentary democracies.
Oh, of course, a system where only the votes of the most people in a state who agree is far more democratic than a system where every person's vote counts directly.

Third, it forces candidates to travel.
To battleground states. Candidates don't even visit shoe-in states a fraction as much as they visit battleground states, and maybe visit each state where they know they won't win just once.

Now, Ohio and Florida are the battleground states, under a popular vote system, areas with higher population densities become the battlegrounds, with the rest of the country being neglected.
Asinine. Candidates would be forced to visit a number of different areas, including low density population areas because their votes now count where in the Electoral College system, they don't count. And it is entirely irrelevant anyway. The advances in technology that made the Electoral College system obsolete still exist - radio and television.

The underlined portion is what I disagree with. If the state votes for say A democratic candidate and the Republican Candidate wins, that just tosses out the votes for the Democratic Candidate. How is that fair to those voters?

From 3 days ago:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041000852.html

But that doesn't make it unconstitutional. It's fine to disagree with the intent of the law--that's what debate is for, for us to try to convince each other of our positions. But in your first post in the thread, you said it was "illegal under the US Constitution." Are you sticking with that?

But that doesn't make it unconstitutional. It's fine to disagree with the intent of the law--that's what debate is for, for us to try to convince each other of our positions. But in your first post in the thread, you said it was "illegal under the US Constitution." Are you sticking with that?

I personally think its unconstitutional but I"m not going to file anything about it! Frankly, I do not care what maryland does. I don't live there :D

I like this from April 11, 2007 WP:
Too bad he is a dumbass. Railroad didn't even exist when the Framers created the Electoral College system. It was created for a populace spread weeks apart with no access to news. We can either adapt to the technology or we can live with the Amish.

Too bad he is a dumbass.

So everyone who disagrees with you is a dumbass?

The underlined portion is what I disagree with. If the state votes for say A democratic candidate and the Republican Candidate wins, that just tosses out the votes for the Democratic Candidate. How is that fair to those voters?
You're big on selective indignation arn't ya? How is the Electoral College system fair to the Democrats in Alabama, or the Republicans in California?

So everyone who disagrees with you is a dumbass?
If they say really ignorant and uninformed stuff like Mr Clark, yes, yes they are.

You're big on selective indignation arn't ya? How is the Electoral College system fair to the Democrats in Alabama, or the Republicans in California?

How is this fair to people who do not want their votes to go to the popular winner if it is not for who they vote for? This won't solve problems at all. It'll just make the current situation worse.


If they say really ignorant and uninformed stuff like Mr Clark, yes, yes they are.

:rolleyes:

Too bad he is a dumbass. Railroad didn't even exist when the Framers created the Electoral College system. It was created for a populace spread weeks apart with no access to news. We can either adapt to the technology or we can live with the Amish.

Not to mention that if this system had been in place in 2000, we wouldn't have had the Florida fiasco or the fucked up SCOTUS decision that put Dubya in the White House to begin with.

Not to mention that if this system had been in place in 2000, we wouldn't have had the Florida fiasco or the fucked up SCOTUS decision that put Dubya in the White House to begin with.

And ironicly, having a minority president (those with less popular votes) IS A RARITY!!

How is this fair to people who do not want their votes to go to the popular winner if it is not for who they vote for? This won't solve problems at all. It'll just make the current situation worse.
Answer the question posed.


:rolleyes:
The Electoral College system assumed a highly uninformed and uninformable populace. The former may be true now, but the latter isn't.

And ironicly, having a minority president (those with less popular votes) IS A RARITY!!
I wasn't aware that "rare" == "never occurs."

This is quite pointless.

It won't help at all. The only thing this sort of push does (besides infringe badly upon the very important concept of the sovereign state) is change which states will be fought over - and entrench the control of the big population states.

Instead of fighting it out in battleground states, which change with each election as demographics and issues events slowly alter the political landscape, if this push succeeds then the only states the politicians will ever visit are New York, California and the next three biggest population centres. Those five will decide the Presidency, every time.

If you think people consider their votes pointless now, wait until someplace like South Dakota votes 90% for one candidate and then turns all of it's votes over to the other one. A straight up popular vote for the presidency is one thing; this is disenfranchisement.

The underlined portion is what I disagree with. If the state votes for say A democratic candidate and the Republican Candidate wins, that just tosses out the votes for the Democratic Candidate. How is that fair to those voters?

From 3 days ago:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041000852.html

I like this from April 11, 2007 WP:
Disagreeing with it in principle doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Second, the system is rather democratic, permitting the people far more influence in the election of the President, than the election of Prime Ministers and Chancellors in most parliamentary democracies.
Not really. In the UK, for example, you vote for your MP, knowing who he/she supports for Prime Minister, who in turn (in effect) elects the Prime Minister on your behalf. Dttto America, where you vote for an Elector who votes for the president.

Answer the question posed.

I support the 12th Amendment. I support the Electoral College. I do not support amendments to do away with it. For the people to have their votes go to a President that the State did not vote for is idiotic and will cause outrage.

As to Alabama, they vote and their votes goes to the winner of the state. Why throw out the election of the President in that state for the candidate that they want and give the votes to the person that they don't want?

The Electoral College system assumed a highly uninformed and uninformable populace. The former may be true now, but the latter isn't.

Actually, they were probably more informed than we are today.

It won't help at all. The only thing this sort of push does (besides infringe badly upon the very important concept of the sovereign state) is change which states will be fought over - and entrench the control of the big population states.
Ah, I was wondering when the favorite position of the uninformed opposition would arise. The big population states would stand to gain nothing in the change to a popular vote. Their votes would be nullified by the rest of the nation - and the other 49% of their population whose vote now counts. When the Electoral College system was implemented, the largest state had 9 votes to the smallest states 3. Now the smallest state has 3 where California has what? 54?

This is quite pointless.

It won't help at all. The only thing this sort of push does (besides infringe badly upon the very important concept of the sovereign state) is change which states will be fought over - and entrench the control of the big population states.

Instead of fighting it out in battleground states, which change with each election as demographics and issues events slowly alter the political landscape, if this push succeeds then the only states the politicians will ever visit are New York, California and the next three biggest population centres. Those five will decide the Presidency, every time.

If you think people consider their votes pointless now, wait until someplace like South Dakota votes 90% for one candidate and then turns all of it's votes over to the other one. A straight up popular vote for the presidency is one thing; this is disenfranchisement.
If you really think this is the ultimate outcome, then you suffer from a lack of imagination.

Why throw out the election of the President in that state for the candidate that they want and give the votes to the person that they don't want?
So you oppose the Electoral College then?

Actually, they were probably more informed than we are today.
Literally impossible. You propose that today's people (the average person has access to the internet, local television, and radio, not to mention daily newspapers) has access and is less informed than the average person (a farmer or probably illiterate craftsman) during the 1770s?

So you oppose the Electoral College then?

Where did that come from? I support the Electoral College. I just do not support what Maryland is doing.

Literally impossible.

And you know this how?

According to the Constitution, the state legislature doesn't even have to let its citizens vote for President.
According to that clause, if a state legislature wished, they could appoint electors via coin flip, choice of the governor, or by reading the entrails of a freshly sacrificed goat. So your question is really irrelevant--there's no guarantee that you'll even get to vote for President.

As is the question poised by TPH.

I support the 12th Amendment. I support the Electoral College. I do not support amendments to do away with it. For the people to have their votes go to a President that the State did not vote for is idiotic and will cause outrage.

As to Alabama, they vote and their votes goes to the winner of the state. Why throw out the election of the President in that state for the candidate that they want and give the votes to the person that they don't want?
According to the Constitution, the state legislature doesn't even have to let its citizens vote for President. 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: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.
According to that clause, if a state legislature wished, they could appoint electors via coin flip, choice of the governor, or by reading the entrails of a freshly sacrificed goat. So your question is really irrelevant--there's no guarantee that you'll even get to vote for President.

And you know this how?
I don't know, did you try reading anything else?

I don't know, did you try reading anything else?

Since You do not know, that renders the rest of the post useless.

Since You do not know, that renders the rest of the post useless.
Did you try reading the rest of the post you cut that other thing from? If you did, you would have seen I explained it in a question I know you would reply to with a stupid answer.

Actually, they were probably more informed than we are today.

Hmmm. Literacy during the formation of the republic was likely in the 20% range at best, considering that there was no public school system and education was generally a sign of elitism. Most of the population was rural, which meant there wasn't a lot of opportunity for discussion of current events. Long distance communication was slow and arduous and unreliable at the best of times.

And yet they were better informed than we are today?

Corny, you're outdoing yourself in this thread.

Literally impossible. You propose that today's people (the average person has access to the internet, local television, and radio, not to mention daily newspapers) has access and is less informed than the average person (a farmer or probably illiterate craftsman) during the 1770s?

Than a small time farmer, you are probably right. Than a craftsman or other professional - no, they probably had a better idea of what was important than most people today.

You mistake noise for information. Our Radio, TV and Internet are full of very little save irrelevant crap and mass-market pablum. Daily newspapers (which were quite in evidence in 1770's, actually, though weeklies were more common) prided themselves on journalism and informativeness, and the mass-media of the time -pamphletting - had to argue both persuasively and emotionally to have any chance of winning converts to their cause.

In addition, any actually educated people (i.e. those who had actually completed high school or tertiary studies) were taught such skills as critical thinking, rhetoric, and logic, things even our most educated are generally denied.

In the modern era we fancy ouselves enlightened. But our ancestors of 200 years ago probably had a better grasp on the important matters of their lives

This is quite pointless.

It won't help at all. The only thing this sort of push does (besides infringe badly upon the very important concept of the sovereign state) is change which states will be fought over - and entrench the control of the big population states.
US States aren't completely sovereign anyway.

Instead of fighting it out in battleground states, which change with each election as demographics and issues events slowly alter the political landscape, if this push succeeds then the only states the politicians will ever visit are New York, California and the next three biggest population centres. Those five will decide the Presidency, every time.
Let's have a look at the 10 biggest cities in the USA:

1 New York City[›] New York 8,213,839
2 Los Angeles California 3,845,541
3 Chicago Illinois 2,842,518
4 Houston[›] Texas 2,076,189
5 Philadelphia Pennsylvania 1,463,281
6 Phoenix Arizona 1,461,575
7 San Antonio Texas 1,256,509
8 San Diego California 1,255,540
9 Dallas Texas 1,213,825
10 San Jose California 912,332
24,541,149

Total population: 24,541,149
Total US population: 301,505,000

So, how would a candidate only appealing to max. 25,000,000 people get the 150,000,000 needed to win an election?

If you think people consider their votes pointless now, wait until someplace like South Dakota votes 90% for one candidate and then turns all of it's votes over to the other one. A straight up popular vote for the presidency is one thing; this is disenfranchisement.
South Dakota doesn't decide who gets to be president. The USA as a whole does. Why should the vote of one state trump the will of the entire electorate?

US States aren't completely sovereign anyway.


Let's have a look at the 10 biggest cities in the USA:

1 New York City[›] New York 8,213,839
2 Los Angeles California 3,845,541
3 Chicago Illinois 2,842,518
4 Houston[›] Texas 2,076,189
5 Philadelphia Pennsylvania 1,463,281
6 Phoenix Arizona 1,461,575
7 San Antonio Texas 1,256,509
8 San Diego California 1,255,540
9 Dallas Texas 1,213,825
10 San Jose California 912,332
24,541,149

Total population: 24,541,149
Total US population: 301,505,000

So, how would a candidate only appealing to max. 25,000,000 people get the 150,000,000 needed to win an election?


You're comparing apples and oranges. It's state, not municipal populations - and by your own numbers, THREE of the top cities are in ONE state.


South Dakota doesn't decide who gets to be president. The USA as a whole does. Why should the vote of one state trump the will of the entire electorate?

Why should the will of a bunch of outsiders trump the will of the South Dakota electorate over where their votes will be cast?

Why should the will of a bunch of outsiders trump the will of the South Dakota electorate over where their votes will be cast?

Ummm. If the people of South Dakota don't like the legislation, they can tell their legislators so, and they can toss any who voted against their wishes, and theoretically repeal said legislation. Or did you forget that part?

Ummm. If the people of South Dakota don't like the legislation, they can tell their legislators so, and they can toss any who voted against their wishes, and theoretically repeal said legislation. Or did you forget that part?

No, of course not. But that won't help them if they get caught up in the rush - and basically lose their representation for an entire election.

I'm trying to point out the problem so they don't make the mistake in the first place.

You mistake noise for information. Our Radio, TV and Internet are full of very little save irrelevant crap and mass-market pablum. Daily newspapers (which were quite in evidence in 1770's, actually, though weeklies were more common) prided themselves on journalism and informativeness, and the mass-media of the time -pamphletting - had to argue both persuasively and emotionally to have any chance of winning converts to their cause.
Irrelevant. News programs on the radio and TV still transfer information about candidates.

In addition, any actually educated people (i.e. those who had actually completed high school or tertiary studies) were taught such skills as critical thinking, rhetoric, and logic, things even our most educated are generally denied.
You mean classically educated people which were an excessively small number of the populace. I said the average person.

In the modern era we fancy ouselves enlightened. But our ancestors of 200 years ago probably had a better grasp on the important matters of their lives
We have far more opportunity to be informed. Whether we choose to take that opportunity isn't the point.

No, of course not. But that won't help them if they get caught up in the rush - and basically lose their representation for an entire election.

I'm trying to point out the problem so they don't make the mistake in the first place.

This kind of legislation doesn't occur in a vacuum, and it's unlikely that it would pass without widespread public support.

And I hardly think it's a mistake. It's simply a matter of a population thinking of itself as citizens of a nation instead of citizens of a state. What's wrong with that?

Irrelevant. News programs on the radio and TV still transfer information about candidates.

Not really. All I hear is how good they are nothing on what they actually stand on. Not to mention the candidates themselves no longer run on records anymore. They make their living bashing their opponets.

You're comparing apples and oranges. It's state, not municipal populations - and by your own numbers, THREE of the top cities are in ONE state.
The second largest state in the union.

Why should the will of a bunch of outsiders trump the will of the South Dakota electorate over where their votes will be cast?
Why should the will of the majority prevent the will of the minority from counting? That is called tyranny of the majority.
That is of course ignoring the fact that if everyone takes up this system, it turns into a direct election and therefore everyone's vote counts.

Not to mention the candidates themselves no longer run on records anymore. They make their living bashing their opponets.
Which is tv and radio's fault how? And people like you encourage that behavior. Or did you block out all the "Kerry is a flip-flopper" stuff?

Not really. All I hear is how good they are nothing on what they actually stand on. Not to mention the candidates themselves no longer run on records anymore. They make their living bashing their opponets.

And how did citizens in the early days of the republic get their information on candidates--assuming they were eligible to vote in the first place? Was it piped directly into their heads? Citizenship takes work.

Oh, and plenty of candidates run on their records, even for national office.

And how did citizens in the early days of the republic get their information on candidates--assuming they were eligible to vote in the first place? Was it piped directly into their heads? Citizenship takes work.

Oh, and plenty of candidates run on their records, even for national office.

One can never tell through all the mud that is slung from both sides of the aisle. God I hate election season. When I run for office, I'm challenging my opponet to a full clean campaign.

You act like candidates don't offer and accept those challenges all the time. But you forget one thing--one candidate's mudslinging is another candidate's talking about the record. It's all about perceptions.

And when one looks at said promises, they are broken all the time.

One can never tell through all the mud that is slung from both sides of the aisle. God I hate election season. When I run for office, I'm challenging my opponet to a full clean campaign.

You act like candidates don't offer and accept those challenges all the time. But you forget one thing--one candidate's mudslinging is another candidate's talking about the record. It's all about perceptions.

You act like candidates don't offer and accept those challenges all the time. But you forget one thing--one candidate's mudslinging is another candidate's talking about the record. It's all about perceptions.

That is a great point!

This kind of legislation doesn't occur in a vacuum, and it's unlikely that it would pass without widespread public support.

And I hardly think it's a mistake. It's simply a matter of a population thinking of itself as citizens of a nation instead of citizens of a state. What's wrong with that?

Nothing - except that it is not how the US is structured or functions. And that by turning the Presidency into a direct-vote you lose any chance of inserting local questions and local concerns. Or the fact that small populations states will never even be visited by a candidate.

The_pantless_hero

Originally Posted by Dododecapod View Post
You're comparing apples and oranges. It's state, not municipal populations - and by your own numbers, THREE of the top cities are in ONE state.

The second largest state in the union.


Third largest. Second most populous. Which was, in fact, my point.



Why should the will of a bunch of outsiders trump the will of the South Dakota electorate over where their votes will be cast?
Why should the will of the majority prevent the will of the minority from counting? That is called tyranny of the majority.

Yes. Which is what you are wanting to impose on the small states.



Not to mention the candidates themselves no longer run on records anymore. They make their living bashing their opponets.
Which is tv and radio's fault how? And people like you encourage that behavior. Or did you block out all the "Kerry is a flip-flopper" stuff?

It isn't TV and Radio's fault - but the simple fact is that the signal-to-noise ratio is at an all time low.
In the 1700s one person would read out a newspaper to a bunch of his illiterate friends. Congressional records were compared assiduously in the elections of the early 1800s. These people were getting, and processing, far more real information than we do for all of our technological marvels.

Nothing - except that it is not how the US is structured or functions. And that by turning the Presidency into a direct-vote you lose any chance of inserting local questions and local concerns. Or the fact that small populations states will never even be visited by a candidate.
And the US can't change? We're not the same nation we were in 1789, so why should we necessarily stick to the same institutions? I'm not suggesting that we should change everything willy-nilly, but the electoral college was designed with the idea that the dirty unwashed shouldn't have much of a voice in government. Our national attitude has changed on that count. So why shouldn't our institutions?

And if you think that small population states wouldn't be visited by candidates, you're suffering from a lack of imagination. If anything, there would be more incentive to go to places, even with small populations, where you can dig out votes. Does anyone go to the Dakotas now? No, because they're not competitive. But if every vote counts, maybe a Democrat goes there to rally the faithful.



It isn't TV and Radio's fault - but the simple fact is that the signal-to-noise ratio is at an all time low.
In the 1700s one person would read out a newspaper to a bunch of his illiterate friends. Congressional records were compared assiduously in the elections of the early 1800s. These people were getting, and processing, far more real information than we do for all of our technological marvels.
You find that superior to the assets we have today? To nearly universal literacy and access to untold amounts of information? You can have it. I'll take today's information age over the past any day, especially since the papers of the past were no better in terms of bias and truth-telling than the media sources of today.

And the US can't change? We're not the same nation we were in 1789, so why should we necessarily stick to the same institutions? I'm not suggesting that we should change everything willy-nilly, but the electoral college was designed with the idea that the dirty unwashed shouldn't have much of a voice in government. Our national attitude has changed on that count. So why shouldn't our institutions?

Our institutions should change - as and when necessary. But the system we have has served us quite well for over 225 years now, and I question, in this case, both the need, and the effectiveness of the proposed solution.


And if you think that small population states wouldn't be visited by candidates, you're suffering from a lack of imagination. If anything, there would be more incentive to go to places, even with small populations, where you can dig out votes. Does anyone go to the Dakotas now? No, because they're not competitive. But if every vote counts, maybe a Democrat goes there to rally the faithful.

Maybe. Certainly, that would be the ideal.

But ideal situations happen about as often as two-headed calves. I don't see a candidate, time and money strapped, choosing to visit central Idaho to get 275 votes when he could be in San Diego getting 275 thousand votes.


You find that superior to the assets we have today? To nearly universal literacy and access to untold amounts of information? You can have it. I'll take today's information age over the past any day, especially since the papers of the past were no better in terms of bias and truth-telling than the media sources of today.

The only way in which the situation in 1776 (or 1876, come to that) was superior was that A) the media actually presented more useful information and B) people were willing to take the time to make an informed choice.

The fact that they were better informed politically than we are now is a damning indictment of our media and our culture.

Our institutions should change - as and when necessary. But the system we have has served us quite well for over 225 years now, and I question, in this case, both the need, and the effectiveness of the proposed solution.See, I don't think the institution has served us well. 7 years ago, it gave us George W. Bush. 3 years ago, it very nearly gave us John Kerry in the same situation, and had that happened, I'm convinced we'd be halfway to a Constitutional amendment right now.


The only way in which the situation in 1776 (or 1876, come to that) was superior was that A) the media actually presented more useful information and B) people were willing to take the time to make an informed choice.

The fact that they were better informed politically than we are now is a damning indictment of our media and our culture.
I still don't see where you're getting this idea that the average person was better informed politically then that they are now. I mean, the average person in 1789 couldn't vote, for starters. You had to be a white male landowner in most places to be able to do that, and that meant you weren't the average person. You were an elite. Large scale participation by the general populace doesn't happen until the 20th century if we're going to include women and African-Americans in the groups.

Third largest. Second most populous. Which was, in fact, my point.
Texas is also on the list three times.


Yes. Which is what you are wanting to impose on the small states.
Wrong. Their votes still count, and count directly.


In the 1700s one person would read out a newspaper to a bunch of his illiterate friends.
Because I'm sure the collegiates hung out with the farmers and nobodies.

Congressional records were compared assiduously in the elections of the early 1800s.
You know this how?

Our institutions should change - as and when necessary. But the system we have has served us quite well for over 225 years now,
The point is that it hasn't. It has only worked by sheer luck, and there has been cracks in its hull where those failing the popular vote are elected.

I question, in this case, both the need, and the effectiveness of the proposed solution.
Oh of course, a direct voting system would be far less effective at figuring out who the people want elected than an abritrarily divided indirect system that can easily elect a person the people don't want. And that perpetuates the duopoly on the American political system.

I don't see a candidate, time and money strapped, choosing to visit central Idaho to get 275 votes when he could be in San Diego getting 275 thousand votes.
Of course if we live in a world where we pretend everyone in a city votes and will vote the same way, all political systems are absurd.

...following on from the Washington State gets it right.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/04/10/AR2007041000852.html

So, hopefully, things like this could become a thing of the past:



Yay or nay?

This is an unconsitutional law under Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3 of the United States Consitution as well as being mentioned in the 12 Amendment. It's my hope that the courts, as they did in D.C. not to long ago, strike down this unconstitutional law. I vote nay. You will have to amend the constitution to change the way the President is elected.

This is an unconsitutional law under Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3 of the United States Consitution as well as being mentioned in the 12 Amendment.
How?
States may apportion their electoral votes however they choose. This is in no way unconstitutional.

This is an unconsitutional law under Article 2, Section 1, Clauses 2 and 3 of the United States Consitution as well as being mentioned in the 12 Amendment. It's my hope that the courts, as they did in D.C. not to long ago, strike down this unconstitutional law. I vote nay. You will have to amend the constitution to change the way the President is elected.

Ya think?
Section 1. The executive power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his office during the term of four years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same term, be elected, as follows:

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: but no Senator or Representative, or person holding an office of trust or profit under the United States, shall be appointed an elector.

The electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for two persons, of whom one at least shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves. And they shall make a list of all the persons voted for, and of the number of votes for each; which list they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates, and the votes shall then be counted. The person having the greatest number of votes shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if there be more than one who have such majority, and have an equal number of votes, then the House of Representatives shall immediately choose by ballot one of them for President; and if no person have a majority, then from the five highest on the list the said House shall in like manner choose the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by States, the representation from each state having one vote; A quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. In every case, after the choice of the President, the person having the greatest number of votes of the electors shall be the Vice President. But if there should remain two or more who have equal votes, the Senate shall choose from them by ballot the Vice President.

The Congress may determine the time of choosing the electors, and the day on which they shall give their votes; which day shall be the same throughout the United States
That's the relevant portions of Article II, Section 1.

The electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;--The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;--the person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President. The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.
That's the 12th Amendment. Go to it sport. Show us where the Maryland law is unconstitutional.

Texas is also on the list three times. [QUOTE]

So it is. Sorry, I missed that.



[QUOTE]Wrong. Their votes still count, and count directly.

Not under the proposed system. The state would be forced to apply it's collegiate votes according to the majority will - and totally regardless of how it's actual citizens had voted.


Because I'm sure the collegiates hung out with the farmers and nobodies.


If you assume that only college goers were literate in the 1770s, then you clearly know absolutely nothing about the cultural and social systems of the time. The US enjoyed an enviable literacy rate, comparable or better than that of Europe.


You know this how?

Little things called history books; you might want to read one once in a while.


The point is that it hasn't. It has only worked by sheer luck, and there has been cracks in its hull where those failing the popular vote are elected.

It happens. And? I don't see this as a failure, really. The Electoral College did what it was designed to do - impose some measure of state influence over the election of the Presidency, rather than it being a pure popularity contest.
Our current system has provided, on the whole, good government. Yes, there have been bad presidents. There have also been bad congresses. But the system has worked well.


Oh of course, a direct voting system would be far less effective at figuring out who the people want elected than an abritrarily divided indirect system that can easily elect a person the people don't want. And that perpetuates the duopoly on the American political system.

There's nothing arbitrary about it-it's the governmental division most critical to the continued well-being of the US, by restricting the powers of any one of the 51 governments.
As to the "the people didn't want" bit - a whole hell of a lot of the people DID want exactly what we got. Or are you denying them a part of "the People"?


Of course if we live in a world where we pretend everyone in a city votes and will vote the same way, all political systems are absurd.

I never made any such stupid claim. All I said was that the politicians will go where the votes are - and that will always, always, be where they can influence the largest number of voters. They'd have to be complete morons to do otherwise.

The proposed system isn't going to change the "battleground states" problem, save perhaps for the worse.

See, I don't think the institution has served us well. 7 years ago, it gave us George W. Bush. 3 years ago, it very nearly gave us John Kerry in the same situation, and had that happened, I'm convinced we'd be halfway to a Constitutional amendment right now.


One bad choice and one near miss doesn't make for a fundamentally flawed system. The US has had reasonably good government for two centuries. And don't forget that we got Nixon, who was a crook, and Harding, who was a fool, with clear majorities.



I still don't see where you're getting this idea that the average person was better informed politically then that they are now. I mean, the average person in 1789 couldn't vote, for starters. You had to be a white male landowner in most places to be able to do that, and that meant you weren't the average person. You were an elite. Large scale participation by the general populace doesn't happen until the 20th century if we're going to include women and African-Americans in the groups.

You have a point, that only white men (and early on, only landowners) could vote. But the landowner clause went pretty quick.

My point, primarily, is that the media then was simply far, far better at getting the political realities out to those who needed it than it is now. Today, we only get tiny snapshots of data regarding what goes on in the halls of power. It may look like a lot, but most of it is just the same regurgitated bullshit you heard yesterday and the day before.

Can you tell me what's up next for a vote in the Senate? An American voter in 1801 probably could have. His media gave him all that sort of information, easily read. Now, you can pull down such data from the congressional website, I'm sure, but do you have it at your fingertips? They did. And they were interested enough to read about and critique their congressmen and senators.

The average voter in the US today is more interested in the football scores.

It doesn't matter how many sign on, the Constitution says you can't do it. Sorry, Maryland.

Has anyone actually confirmed the law on this issue? It seems alot of us are assuming the Constitution does not allow this, yet to me for a group to have been pushing for states to bypass the law surely there must be holes in the Consitution banning states from doing this in the first place. And the group has been around for some years now so I'm sure they would have gotten called on it before if it was illegal. Not sure though. Confirmation needed.

The average voter in the US today is more interested in the football scores.

Very true. Mainly because high standards have spolied us, however. Could happen to any nation, really. New generations realize they got it going and see no need to preoccupy themselves with government issues of the past. At this rate we'll have a government that is allowed to do anything in the name of anything and the people will idly sit by as long as they are well fed. Makes you wonder why the rich are more sympathetic to actions taken by government officials while the worker highly distrusts them. It has been an issue for ages.

So would this mean that a canidate could get 49.9% of the popukar vote but not any of the electoral vote?

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply divide by electoral votes by how people vote? For example, if 60% of people vote republican, then they get 6 of the votes. Of course you'd have to round a lot

So would this mean that a canidate could get 49.9% of the popukar vote but not any of the electoral vote?

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply divide by electoral votes by how people vote? For example, if 60% of people vote republican, then they get 6 of the votes. Of course you'd have to round a lot

That I would support but then, you could very well have several elections tossed into the US House and Senate for failure to gain the necessary 270 votes.

So would this mean that a canidate could get 49.9% of the popukar vote but not any of the electoral vote?

Wouldn't it make more sense to simply divide by electoral votes by how people vote? For example, if 60% of people vote republican, then they get 6 of the votes. Of course you'd have to round a lot

What do you mean 6 of the votes. 6 out of 10? States don't have an equal amount of electoral votes nor would such a system work. It would be pointless.

The detractors of this idea who believe that it will deprive people of a vote have the two systems - majority popular vote and electoral college- combined and confused.

These proposals do not award the state EC votes on the basis of who wins the total EC vote or the EC votes of NY and CA, but on the basis of who received the most votes total - not broken down by state.

Candidate X winning the majority popular vote but losing in Maryland does not mean that maryland's votes were nullified or wasted - they counted towards the majority popular vote in exactly the same measure as every other vote everywhere else.

The only system that actually equalizes the weight of votes and prevents any votes from ever being irrelevant is the direct popular vote, which is the aim of this law.

If the direct popular vote decides the election, then it is impossible for any vote to have been wasted.

What do you mean 6 of the votes. 6 out of 10? States don't have an equal amount of electoral votes nor would such a system work. It would be pointless.

And why would it not work?

Hello what century are we in??

I think it high time to change the system, like i said many pages back, we have more informed persona that have the opportunity to look up their canidate and vote for who tehy want, unlike when this nation was started.

Also do you seriously think your vote is actually being counted when these select few of the electoral college so calls "votes"? Sorry its a old system that doesnt fit with the times, as much as maybe Kerry could of won(and that is a BIG maybe) in the last election, i think the system is out of date.

Who really cares?

Whoever I'd support for President has now gone from "Not A Chance In Hell" to "May Conceivably Have a Tiny Ass Chance If Everyone Else Died", or something like that.

Although honestly I don't know who I want for President...

Who really cares?

Whoever I'd support for President has now gone from "Not A Chance In Hell" to "May Conceivably Have a Tiny Ass Chance If Everyone Else Died", or something like that.

Although honestly I don't know who I want for President...

Edit: Although it would be interesting to see Michael Savage get elected...and hell, he'd get millions of votes.

The point is YOUR vote SHOULD matter and you SHOULD care and show that. But as it is now, we dont ahve a say unless its at the local level like county/city and what not.

The point is YOUR vote SHOULD matter and you SHOULD care and show that. But as it is now, we dont ahve a say unless its at the local level like county/city and what not.

Right now, let's say there's Bob and Tom running for President, and a thousand people in my state voted.

I want to vote for Jim, so I do.

But, since Jim didn't get the majority of votes, he gets nothing from the electoral college.

End result: my vote has little to no effect.



Now, with a popular vote...

Bob and Tom running again, only this time it's two hundred million people voting.

I want to vote for Jim again, so I do.

What good is one vote going to do against 200,000,000?

End result: my vote has little to no effect.



Democracy is simply tyranny of the majority, and is not the end-all solution for the world's problems.

I opposed this legislation because I find the idea that it will be beneficial to be absurd. Designating the state’s Electoral College votes to a winner-take-all of the national popular vote only serves to give greater sway to large cities while completely disenfranchising voters in rural areas.

It is a simple matter of economics and the marginal cost of a voter. Rural campaigns cost a lot of time and money for very few votes compared to campaigning in cities. Everything from media advertising to neighborhood ‘get out the vote’ programs are more cost effective in cities. When all you care about is total national votes, money is best directed to where the marginal cost of a voter is lowest. This is the very reason why we have the congressional system – every state has the same number of senators so that the most populous states cannot totally dominate the smaller states.

Giving all the electoral votes to whomever wins the national popular election will see politicians largely ignore low populations in favor of campaigning in densely populated areas. If you want to eliminate the ‘battleground state’ problem, portion the electoral votes out in proportion to the votes within the state. Some states already do this and it makes a whole lot more sense to me than lumping all the electoral votes of the state to one candidate no matter how you choose that candidate.

Elections have been very close these days – what happens when a recount is demanded (as seems to be the trend lately)? Every vote in the entire nation would have to be reviewed at astronomical expense. Electoral fraud is currently fairly limited in its impact – go to an all or nothing popular vote and the scope for fraud is that much greater. You would have to take a very close look at every jurisdiction of every state of the entire nation.

Focus all your money and effort on the coasts and the lakes then ignore the rest. Once you’ve got the Boston to Philly corridor, Southern California, Florida, Texas, plus Chicago and the Great Lakes, you can ignore the rest.

I opposed this legislation because I find the idea that it will be beneficial to be absurd. Designating the state’s Electoral College votes to a winner-take-all of the national popular vote only serves to give greater sway to large cities while completely disenfranchising voters in rural areas.
Why does the current system give rural areas better representation? Is California's electoral college delegation decided by rural areas or by its cities?

It is a simple matter of economics and the marginal cost of a voter. Rural campaigns cost a lot of time and money for very few votes compared to campaigning in cities. Everything from media advertising to neighborhood ‘get out the vote’ programs are more cost effective in cities. When all you care about is total national votes, money is best directed to where the marginal cost of a voter is lowest. This is the very reason why we have the congressional system – every state has the same number of senators so that the most populous states cannot totally dominate the smaller states.

Giving all the electoral votes to whomever wins the national popular election will see politicians largely ignore low populations in favor of campaigning in densely populated areas. If you want to eliminate the ‘battleground state’ problem, portion the electoral votes out in proportion to the votes within the state. Some states already do this and it makes a whole lot more sense to me than lumping all the electoral votes of the state to one candidate no matter how you choose that candidate.

If politicians are short-sighted enough not to campaign in rural areas, it's their call. But they won't get many votes for it, and won't get into office if they put all their eggs in one basket. America still has a fairly large rural population, although I see no reason why someone in a rural area should have a greater vote than someone in an urban area.

Elections have been very close these days – what happens when a recount is demanded (as seems to be the trend lately)? Every vote in the entire nation would have to be reviewed at astronomical expense. Electoral fraud is currently fairly limited in its impact – go to an all or nothing popular vote and the scope for fraud is that much greater. You would have to take a very close look at every jurisdiction of every state of the entire nation.
You just do a recount in the area where it is required. In any case, countries like Mexico, Brazil, Korea, France all elect their Presidents using a national popular vote and seem to get by. Why couldn't America?

Focus all your money and effort on the coasts and the lakes then ignore the rest. Once you’ve got the Boston to Philly corridor, Southern California, Florida, Texas, plus Chicago and the Great Lakes, you can ignore the rest.
Nice description of the current system.

You're comparing apples and oranges. It's state, not municipal populations - and by your own numbers, THREE of the top cities are in ONE state.
The point was of urban against rural areas.

Why should the will of a bunch of outsiders trump the will of the South Dakota electorate over where their votes will be cast?
Because South Dakota doesn't decide who the President is - the USA as a whole does.

Ya think?

That's the relevant portions of Article II, Section 1.


That's the 12th Amendment. Go to it sport. Show us where the Maryland law is unconstitutional.

I misread the article and missed the part about awarding the electoral vote via the popular vote. I skimmed through it and then reading all the post about people debating the merits of the Electoral system and whether it should stay or go I made the deduction, the wrong one, that Maryland got rid of its electoral vote all together. That is why I called it unconstitutional. Geez

Meh.

According to the Constitution, the state legislature doesn't even have to let its citizens vote for President.
According to that clause, if a state legislature wished, they could appoint electors via coin flip, choice of the governor, or by reading the entrails of a freshly sacrificed goat.

Now that would be cool. :cool:

*runs*

Right now, let's say there's Bob and Tom running for President, and a thousand people in my state voted.

I want to vote for Jim, so I do.

But, since Jim didn't get the majority of votes, he gets nothing from the electoral college.

End result: my vote has little to no effect.
Wrong. Your vote has zero effect because it doesn't count directly. It is tossed out after it is decided who "won" the state.



Now, with a popular vote...

Bob and Tom running again, only this time it's two hundred million people voting.

I want to vote for Jim again, so I do.

What good is one vote going to do against 200,000,000?

End result: my vote has little to no effect.
But your vote counts directly, a third-party has far more of a chance to win because they don't have to win a state to get votes. A third-party could earn 1/4 of the popular vote, or more, and not win a single electoral vote with the current system, thus encouraging people to not throw their vote away on a third-party.


Designating the state’s Electoral College votes to a winner-take-all of the national popular vote only serves to give greater sway to large cities while completely disenfranchising voters in rural areas.
Because of course presidential candidates visit the rural areas now :rolleyes:

Giving all the electoral votes to whomever wins the national popular election will see politicians largely ignore low populations in favor of campaigning in densely populated areas.
As opposed to only 2 or 3 states.

If you want to eliminate the ‘battleground state’ problem, portion the electoral votes out in proportion to the votes within the state.
But then that would disenfranchise the rural areas of the state!

Elections have been very close these days – what happens when a recount is demanded (as seems to be the trend lately)? Every vote in the entire nation would have to be reviewed at astronomical expense
1) It's the fucking government. Choosing lunch is done at an astronomical expense
2) Ever heard of the Census? Same theory. Standardize the entire nation's voting process (as opposed to the bullshit we have now) and remove middlemen who are invested in wanting certain people to win.

Once you’ve got the Boston to Philly corridor, Southern California, Florida, Texas, plus Chicago and the Great Lakes, you can ignore the rest.
Which is different than now in what way?

Right now, let's say there's Bob and Tom running for President, and a thousand people in my state voted.

I want to vote for Jim, so I do.

But, since Jim didn't get the majority of votes, he gets nothing from the electoral college.

End result: my vote has little to no effect.



Now, with a popular vote...

Bob and Tom running again, only this time it's two hundred million people voting.

I want to vote for Jim again, so I do.

What good is one vote going to do against 200,000,000?

End result: my vote has little to no effect.



Democracy is simply tyranny of the majority, and is not the end-all solution for the world's problems.

Actually that isthe BEST system ever, where everyone vote counts. Just because you didnt win doesnt mean it didnt count over all and you have to be a big whinner. Are you really that big of a sore loser? I am going to assume you are young and dont understand the system. As you grow you will understand you will not get everything you want. Direct voting and Democracy is the adult and realistic thing.

The point is YOUR vote SHOULD matter and you SHOULD care and show that. But as it is now, we dont ahve a say unless its at the local level like county/city and what not.

And Maryland's is not much better either. In fact, in my opinion, it is worse than what we have now.

Actually that isthe BEST system ever, where everyone vote counts. Just because you didnt win doesnt mean it didnt count over all and you have to be a big whinner. Are you really that big of a sore loser? I am going to assume you are young and dont understand the system. As you grow you will understand you will not get everything you want. Direct voting and Democracy is the adult and realistic thing.
I really wanted to stay away from this, but the last little nonsensical blurb was too much. Democracy is clearly the wrong direction to take. We should be thinking of ways to restrict the numbers of people that vote in Presidential elections. That's right, let me be absolutely clear, I want to restrict the "right" of the people to vote in presidential elections, not expand it. Our founding fathers did not believe that everyone should vote and they made no provision for a "right" to vote in federal elections. Now this is not to say that some people should be denied their Constitutional rights. Everyone gets equal protection under the law, and everyone should be protected by that law but it is sheer idiocy to allow those without a clue to participate in choosing who will lead our country.

Do any of you know of a successful business that allows the rank and file workers to decide who the next CEO will be? Of course not. The shareholders, not the employees, but the shareholders, elect a board of directors and that board then chooses the CEO. This works pretty well for businesses, and it's a system that would work equally well for our country. And just who would the "shareholders" be? Those who pay and have paid taxes; those who have invested in our country through hard work.

Hells yeah! Maryland State gets it right! W00p w00p! That's where I am, people, that's me! We win!

*throws impromptu awesome party with streamers and everything*

:cool:

I really wanted to stay away from this, but the last little nonsensical blurb was too much. Democracy is clearly the wrong direction to take. We should be thinking of ways to restrict the numbers of people that vote in Presidential elections. That's right, let me be absolutely clear, I want to restrict the "right" of the people to vote in presidential elections, not expand it. Our founding fathers did not believe that everyone should vote and they made no provision for a "right" to vote in federal elections. Now this is not to say that some people should be denied their Constitutional rights. Everyone gets equal protection under the law, and everyone should be protected by that law but it is sheer idiocy to allow those without a clue to participate in choosing who will lead our country.

Do any of you know of a successful business that allows the rank and file workers to decide who the next CEO will be? Of course not. The shareholders, not the employees, but the shareholders, elect a board of directors and that board then chooses the CEO. This works pretty well for businesses, and it's a system that would work equally well for our country. And just who would the "shareholders" be? Those who pay and have paid taxes; those who have invested in our country through hard work.

Frankly, I'm in favor of the Australian system where everybody HAS to vote. It seems to be working for them. Yeah, there's a lot of idiots around here, but the wisdom of the whole collective (and not just the extremes) appears to work pretty well. Heck, just look at Wikipedia. :p

The point was of urban against rural areas.


Because South Dakota doesn't decide who the President is - the USA as a whole does.

This is true in both the current and the proposed system. The difference is that under the current system, the residents of South Dakota get to decide where South Dakota's votes go.

If South Dakota accepted the proposal, they could be overruled by Tulsa, Oklahoma. Seriously, Tulsa has the larger population.

With this proposal, the smaller population states cease to have a say in the executive at all.

Not really. What it will change is the strategy. Now, if you're a Republican living in California, there will be a reason for your candidates to drive the vote there, and stop in for more than money. Or New York. Same thing if you're a Democrat in Texas. Or South Dakota. Since every vote will matter, political parties will then have to drive votes in every constituency, because the total will matter.

Yes, there is the possibility that candidates will focus their efforts in the cities only, simply because there are more candidates per square mile than anywhere else. But in a nationwide campaign, that's a very limited strategy, very short-sighted, and one that a creative opponent could exploit. If I were running a nationwide campaign, I certainly wouldn't dump all my eggs in the big city basket, and I'm a liberal, so that's ostensibly where my power base would be.

If you look at the distribution of liberals vs. conservatives, the cities are largely liberal.

In fact, some of them are guaranteed to liberal Presidential candidates, no matter what the Republicans do.

Makes it far, far easier for Democrats.

It's not a short sighted strategy for Democrats. Since they get the blue states by default, which have the highest population concentration, just campaigning in a few red states gets you the win every time.

It's like a permanent I Win button.

This bill is illegal under the US Constitution so I vote nay.

No it isn't.

"Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors"

Article 2, Section 1

I really wanted to stay away from this, but the last little nonsensical blurb was too much. Democracy is clearly the wrong direction to take. We should be thinking of ways to restrict the numbers of people that vote in Presidential elections. That's right, let me be absolutely clear, I want to restrict the "right" of the people to vote in presidential elections, not expand it. Our founding fathers did not believe that everyone should vote and they made no provision for a "right" to vote in federal elections. Now this is not to say that some people should be denied their Constitutional rights. Everyone gets equal protection under the law, and everyone should be protected by that law but it is sheer idiocy to allow those without a clue to participate in choosing who will lead our country.

Do any of you know of a successful business that allows the rank and file workers to decide who the next CEO will be? Of course not. The shareholders, not the employees, but the shareholders, elect a board of directors and that board then chooses the CEO. This works pretty well for businesses, and it's a system that would work equally well for our country. And just who would the "shareholders" be? Those who pay and have paid taxes; those who have invested in our country through hard work.

Elitist bullshit. Just because you pay taxes doesn't mean your opinion's worth a damn thing. More often than not, those paying taxes have their heads so far up their asses over everything, that I wonder if the conflict of interest means maybe they ought to lose their votes. (see, two can play at the bullshit game.

You have two options in the world, a just democracy, or a government that needs to be overthrown. That doesn't mean that their aren't aspects of the Constitution that slow change (but don't prevent it) that should be kept, it just means that any talk of "limiting" who can vote is bullshit.

Good. The detractors are retarded. The states have too much power as is. Cuba via Florida should not be a factor in the presdential elections. I wish more states would get this through.

Good. The detractors are retarded. The states have too much power as is. Cuba via Florida should not be a factor in the presdential elections. I wish more states would get this through.

As someone wise put it, no one should get all of the votes. Not even Washington got all of the first Electoral College vote.

This is true in both the current and the proposed system. The difference is that under the current system, the residents of South Dakota get to decide where South Dakota's votes go.

If South Dakota accepted the proposal, they could be overruled by Tulsa, Oklahoma. Seriously, Tulsa has the larger population.

With this proposal, the smaller population states cease to have a say in the executive at all.
The state as a sovereign entity officially died years ago after a large number of laws by Congress that effectively said that. This isn't a division of state vs state or city vs city. Nor even "citizen of a state" vs "citizen of the nation." It is of ignorance vs a fair democracy. You, sir, are encouraging ignorance and god knows that doesn't need any encouragement.

As someone wise put it, no one should get all of the votes.
Just two people?

Not even Washington got all of the first Electoral College vote.
Oh please, if you want to cite "wise" people and cite Washington, I will cite Washington's Farewell Address in which he derided and argued against a polarized two-party system, which the Electoral College now perpetuates.
Ante up.

In fact, some of them are guaranteed to liberal Presidential candidates, no matter what the Republicans do.

Makes it far, far easier for Democrats.
Then how do the Republicans every win any states or any presidential elections?

This is true in both the current and the proposed system. The difference is that under the current system, the residents of South Dakota get to decide where South Dakota's votes go.

If South Dakota accepted the proposal, they could be overruled by Tulsa, Oklahoma. Seriously, Tulsa has the larger population.
And what is the problem with this? That only means that the voter in South Dakota and Tulsa, Oklahoma has the same, equal vote.

With this proposal, the smaller population states cease to have a say in the executive at all.
Why do they have so much influence now when the largest state has 55 votes and the smallest 3?

Elitist bullshit. Just because you pay taxes doesn't mean your opinion's worth a damn thing. More often than not, those paying taxes have their heads so far up their asses over everything, that I wonder if the conflict of interest means maybe they ought to lose their votes. (see, two can play at the bullshit game.

You have two options in the world, a just democracy, or a government that needs to be overthrown. That doesn't mean that their aren't aspects of the Constitution that slow change (but don't prevent it) that should be kept, it just means that any talk of "limiting" who can vote is bullshit.
Thanks for that well presented and even better thought out reply. Kinda makes my side seem even more true, doesn't it?

I really wanted to stay away from this, but the last little nonsensical blurb was too much. Democracy is clearly the wrong direction to take. We should be thinking of ways to restrict the numbers of people that vote in Presidential elections. That's right, let me be absolutely clear, I want to restrict the "right" of the people to vote in presidential elections, not expand it. Our founding fathers did not believe that everyone should vote and they made no provision for a "right" to vote in federal elections. Now this is not to say that some people should be denied their Constitutional rights. Everyone gets equal protection under the law, and everyone should be protected by that law but it is sheer idiocy to allow those without a clue to participate in choosing who will lead our country.

Do any of you know of a successful business that allows the rank and file workers to decide who the next CEO will be? Of course not. The shareholders, not the employees, but the shareholders, elect a board of directors and that board then chooses the CEO. This works pretty well for businesses, and it's a system that would work equally well for our country. And just who would the "shareholders" be? Those who pay and have paid taxes; those who have invested in our country through hard work.

In a perfect world, only the wisest and smartest would pick the leaders.

Who cares though? The world is far from perfect.

Paying taxes is not an indication of "having a clue" about how to run the country. At any rate, everyone except the very very poor pays taxes, and those people do not decide elections to begin with.


Oh, patriotic purist, perhaps those people you deem too unsavory to vote should also be counted as two-thirds of a person for other purposes. After all, that is how the founders wanted it.

Why do they have so much influence now when the largest state has 55 votes and the smallest 3?

I never said the current system is perfect. However, I do believe the current system is the better one, because it forces candidates to look at regional issues, not just big national ones.


The state as a sovereign entity officially died years ago after a large number of laws by Congress that effectively said that. This isn't a division of state vs state or city vs city. Nor even "citizen of a state" vs "citizen of the nation." It is of ignorance vs a fair democracy. You, sir, are encouraging ignorance and god knows that doesn't need any encouragement.


No, I'm encouraging multiple viewpoints. I do not in the least accept that the sovereign state is dead; I am not a Montanan, or an Illinoisan, or a New Yorker, I'm a Washingtonian. And if a Federal politician wants the votes of Washington State, I want him to have to give a damn about the things that matter to me and to my state. And those issues can be substantially different between one state and it's nearest neighbours, much less one three states away.

There is nothing ignorant about the electoral college system. It is also a lie that it encourages the two-party duopoly; the college has done perfectly well in those rare cases of three or more major candidates.

Nor is a direct vote in any way fairer. "One man, one vote" is a wonderful slogan that usually actually means exactly what it does here - mob rule. The tyranny of the majority. If you want Federal candidates to spend every moment of every campaign in New York, California and Texas, go right ahead. Me, I say make them earn their votes across the board.

I really wanted to stay away from this, but the last little nonsensical blurb was too much. Democracy is clearly the wrong direction to take. We should be thinking of ways to restrict the numbers of people that vote in Presidential elections. That's right, let me be absolutely clear, I want to restrict the "right" of the people to vote in presidential elections, not expand it. Our founding fathers did not believe that everyone should vote and they made no provision for a "right" to vote in federal elections. Now this is not to say that some people should be denied their Constitutional rights. Everyone gets equal protection under the law, and everyone should be protected by that law but it is sheer idiocy to allow those without a clue to participate in choosing who will lead our country.

Do any of you know of a successful business that allows the rank and file workers to decide who the next CEO will be? Of course not. The shareholders, not the employees, but the shareholders, elect a board of directors and that board then chooses the CEO. This works pretty well for businesses, and it's a system that would work equally well for our country. And just who would the "shareholders" be? Those who pay and have paid taxes; those who have invested in our country through hard work.
So--women who stay home and take care of kids shouldn't be allowed to vote? Disabled people don't get a vote? And which is it--the paying of taxes or the hard work, or both, because there are plenty of people who have inherited money, never worked a day in their lives but paid taxes--do they get a vote? What if your work has involved running a tax exempt charity--are you disenfranchised as well?

And as to your CEO example, well, it's silly. Boards of Directors make bad choices in CEOs all the damn time, largely because the Boards are often made up of people chosen in part by said CEO. So you want to turn executive power over to the people who already have all the power? No thanks. There's nothing inherently smarter about the people currently in charge--most of the time they got there thanks to the head starts their parents gave them. Trump wouldn't be Trump without the inheritance he got from his dad. Neither would Dubya. Neither would most of the monetary elite in this country.

The story of the self-made man is largely a myth fomented by the people in power to keep the poor folks from rising up and hanging them all from the nearest trees. There's more class mobility in "socialist" Europe than there is in the US and there has been for years now.

So no thanks. I'll take the democratic system.

In a perfect world, only the wisest and smartest would pick the leaders.

Who cares though? The world is far from perfect.

Paying taxes is not an indication of "having a clue" about how to run the country. At any rate, everyone except the very very poor pays taxes, and those people do not decide elections to begin with.


Oh, patriotic purist, perhaps those people you deem too unsavory to vote should also be counted as two-thirds of a person for other purposes. After all, that is how the founders wanted it.

Just one small point--even the very poor pay taxes. They may not pay income taxes, but they pay sales tax at the very least, and they often pay taxes in the form of fees for services as well.

Nor is a direct vote in any way fairer. "One man, one vote" is a wonderful slogan that usually actually means exactly what it does here - mob rule. The tyranny of the majority. If you want Federal candidates to spend every moment of every campaign in New York, California and Texas, go right ahead. Me, I say make them earn their votes across the board.


But they don't. They spend almost all their time in the swing states such as Florida.

If you look at the distribution of liberals vs. conservatives, the cities are largely liberal.

In fact, some of them are guaranteed to liberal Presidential candidates, no matter what the Republicans do.

Makes it far, far easier for Democrats.

It's not a short sighted strategy for Democrats. Since they get the blue states by default, which have the highest population concentration, just campaigning in a few red states gets you the win every time.

It's like a permanent I Win button.

Except it isn't. As someone noted well back in the thread, even if you assume that one candidate will win every vote of the top ten cities in the US, you're still a hell of a long way off from the majority. I haven't done the math, but I'd be willing to bet you could extrapolate that out to the top 100 cities and you'd still be short of the 60 million or so you'd need to win the presidency, and that assumes you win every vote in those cities. Anyone who ran and figured he or she could concentrate only in the cities would be doomed to lose, and lose big.

It is also a lie that it encourages the two-party duopoly;

I was going to ignore your inane bullshit, but that is so over the top it is incorrigible. Besides the fact it is nigh impossible to get on every ballet in the US, you have to compete with the fact you have to have a majority of the votes in the state to win any electoral votes and therefore any shot at the presidency. A quarter of the nation combined could vote for a third party candidate and he could receive exactly zero electoral votes. The electoral college encourages and empowers the duopoly of the Democrats and the Republicans by making it all but literally impossible for a third-party victory.

Nor is a direct vote in any way fairer. "One man, one vote" is a wonderful slogan that usually actually means exactly what it does here - mob rule. The tyranny of the majority.
As opposed to the electoral "tyranny by the possible majority"?

I really wanted to stay away from this, but the last little nonsensical blurb was too much. Democracy is clearly the wrong direction to take. We should be thinking of ways to restrict the numbers of people that vote in Presidential elections. That's right, let me be absolutely clear, I want to restrict the "right" of the people to vote in presidential elections, not expand it. Our founding fathers did not believe that everyone should vote and they made no provision for a "right" to vote in federal elections. Now this is not to say that some people should be denied their Constitutional rights. Everyone gets equal protection under the law, and everyone should be protected by that law but it is sheer idiocy to allow those without a clue to participate in choosing who will lead our country.
The utterly stupidest idea there is is to say we should adhere to the beliefs of a 200 year culture where women and poor people have no rights.

As opposed to the electoral "tyranny by the possible majority"?
I tihnk Dododecapod doesn't really understand what the phrase "tyranny of the majority" means. It refers to abusing the rights of the minority by legislating away their rights. It has nothing to do with candidate elections.

Just one small point--even the very poor pay taxes. They may not pay income taxes, but they pay sales tax at the very least, and they often pay taxes in the form of fees for services as well.

Indeed, I was thinking mainly in terms of federal income tax though, since the issue might be raised that state sales tax, for instance, doesn't "qualify" a presumptive sub-citizen for the voting "privilige" in national elections.

Indeed, I was thinking mainly in terms of federal income tax though, since the issue might be raised that state sales tax, for instance, doesn't "qualify" a presumptive sub-citizen for the voting "privilige" in national elections.

There's also payroll taxes to consider, assuming we're talking about people with jobs--Social Security and Medicare taxes, which hit the poor harder than anyone making more than 90K a year.

First of all I m getting tired of people viewing as the nation as a true Democarcy as the nation was founded as a Republic as half the people are to damn stupid to even understand the issues much less then being able to chose a candidate whom they really agree with.

Secondly the founding fathers wanted an electoral college so the people would not elect an idiot, though this has messed up once or twice.

Lastly, a nation our size it would be to hard for people to directly elect the President.

First of all I m getting tired of people viewing as the nation as a true Democarcy as the nation was founded as a Republic as half the people are to damn stupid to even understand the issues much less then being able to chose a candidate whom they really agree with.

Generally, when a person begins a statement with a phrase like "first of all," said person follows up with a second point, even if said point is as inane as the first.

I really wanted to stay away from this, but the last little nonsensical blurb was too much. Democracy is clearly the wrong direction to take. We should be thinking of ways to restrict the numbers of people that vote in Presidential elections. That's right, let me be absolutely clear, I want to restrict the "right" of the people to vote in presidential elections, not expand it. Our founding fathers did not believe that everyone should vote and they made no provision for a "right" to vote in federal elections. Now this is not to say that some people should be denied their Constitutional rights. Everyone gets equal protection under the law, and everyone should be protected by that law but it is sheer idiocy to allow those without a clue to participate in choosing who will lead our country.

Boy you know jack shit about our founding fathers dont ya? You also dont understand the time of that era dont ya? Isnt it about time to change from teh old ways to the new? And who gives the lines to draw on who votes and who doesnt? EVERYONE in this nation that is a citizen has a RIGHT to vote and know they get a fair chance to throw their lot in. And who doesnt have a clue? Those like you that want to restrict freedoms? Hahahahaha! Errr.
Point is even ignorant persons such as yourself deserve to vote too.

Do any of you know of a successful business that allows the rank and file workers to decide who the next CEO will be? Of course not. The shareholders, not the employees, but the shareholders, elect a board of directors and that board then chooses the CEO. This works pretty well for businesses, and it's a system that would work equally well for our country. And just who would the "shareholders" be? Those who pay and have paid taxes; those who have invested in our country through hard work.

Sorry but your wrong...
Shareholders are a combination of citizens that work for the compnay and those of the community that live there and more. DO you have any realization what a share-holder is? And citizen that has paid the taxes and live here legally deserve the right to vote.

I never said the current system is perfect. However, I do believe the current system is the better one, because it forces candidates to look at regional issues, not just big national ones.




No, I'm encouraging multiple viewpoints. I do not in the least accept that the sovereign state is dead; I am not a Montanan, or an Illinoisan, or a New Yorker, I'm a Washingtonian. And if a Federal politician wants the votes of Washington State, I want him to have to give a damn about the things that matter to me and to my state. And those issues can be substantially different between one state and it's nearest neighbours, much less one three states away.

There is nothing ignorant about the electoral college system. It is also a lie that it encourages the two-party duopoly; the college has done perfectly well in those rare cases of three or more major candidates.

Nor is a direct vote in any way fairer. "One man, one vote" is a wonderful slogan that usually actually means exactly what it does here - mob rule. The tyranny of the majority. If you want Federal candidates to spend every moment of every campaign in New York, California and Texas, go right ahead. Me, I say make them earn their votes across the board.

But they dont have to spend every moment in every state or even every city, its called TV, radio and such. Not that hard to do reall.

And majority rule shows the advancement of that society, shows that everyone can tell what they want aand actually get what they want, not let elitiest like yourself get what they want. You say mob rule, i say majority rules.

I tihnk Dododecapod doesn't really understand what the phrase "tyranny of the majority" means. It refers to abusing the rights of the minority by legislating away their rights. It has nothing to do with candidate elections.

On the contrary, I believe the phrase to be perfectly apt to the situation (and I must correct you: your definition is the most common one for that phrase, and the one I intended; but no phrase in English has but a single possible meaning once you are past the utterly banal).

In this case, you would indeed be depriving people of a right - the right to a higher level of influence over the election then they would normally be given through pure numbers. A right enshrined in the constitution through the mechanism of the electoral college.

I was going to ignore your inane bullshit, but that is so over the top it is incorrigible. Besides the fact it is nigh impossible to get on every ballet in the US, you have to compete with the fact you have to have a majority of the votes in the state to win any electoral votes and therefore any shot at the presidency. A quarter of the nation combined could vote for a third party candidate and he could receive exactly zero electoral votes. The electoral college encourages and empowers the duopoly of the Democrats and the Republicans by making it all but literally impossible for a third-party victory.

Okay - there must be some sort of reasoning disconnect going here. Because I don't see any of your argument as actually being relevant to the question. I don't consider you to be stupid, so clearly we're operating on a different wavelength here.

Besides the fact it is nigh impossible to get on every ballet in the US,

Why is this more of a problem for a third-party candidate than for a Rep/Dem? I understand that many times Presidential candidates of the major parties aren't on every states' ballot. To me, this would give a third party candidate a window - if the Rep or Dem candidate isn't on the ballot, he's only up against one opponent, not two.

you have to compete with the fact you have to have a majority of the votes in the state to win any electoral votes and therefore any shot at the presidency. A quarter of the nation combined could vote for a third party candidate and he could receive exactly zero electoral votes.

But this is equally true for Rep/Dem candidates. However, I believe you made a small error - the winner of most of the states, I believe, needs only a plurality of the votes.

If the requiremnt is the same for all candidates, how can it favour one? In your proposed system, would not the same stricture be required, save on a much larger scale?

On the contrary, I believe the phrase to be perfectly apt to the situation (and I must correct you: your definition is the most common one for that phrase, and the one I intended; but no phrase in English has but a single possible meaning once you are past the utterly banal).

In this case, you would indeed be depriving people of a right - the right to a higher level of influence over the election then they would normally be given through pure numbers. A right enshrined in the constitution through the mechanism of the electoral college.

Okay, now you're just being silly. The Electoral College favors some voters over others, i.e. those in battleground states over those in safe states. But the Constitution applies to all, equally, no? So how can removing the Electoral College deprive everyone of that so-called right? Removing the Electoral College allows everyone's vote to count the same, to carry the same weight. You've actually argued against yourself.

So--women who stay home and take care of kids shouldn't be allowed to vote? Disabled people don't get a vote? And which is it--the paying of taxes or the hard work, or both, because there are plenty of people who have inherited money, never worked a day in their lives but paid taxes--do they get a vote? What if your work has involved running a tax exempt charity--are you disenfranchised as well?

And as to your CEO example, well, it's silly. Boards of Directors make bad choices in CEOs all the damn time, largely because the Boards are often made up of people chosen in part by said CEO. So you want to turn executive power over to the people who already have all the power? No thanks. There's nothing inherently smarter about the people currently in charge--most of the time they got there thanks to the head starts their parents gave them. Trump wouldn't be Trump without the inheritance he got from his dad. Neither would Dubya. Neither would most of the monetary elite in this country.

The story of the self-made man is largely a myth fomented by the people in power to keep the poor folks from rising up and hanging them all from the nearest trees. There's more class mobility in "socialist" Europe than there is in the US and there has been for years now.

So no thanks. I'll take the democratic system.
These are minor details. I've proposed a first cut at how to reduce the voting population and there are sure to be some things to be worked out. Maybe women shouldn't vote? They almost always vote for security over liberty and that's usually a wrong choice.

People who pay income taxes have, by and large, and in spite of your classist attitudes, demonstrated that they can be counted on to make more good decisions than bad ones. People who get earned income credit payments have demonstrated that they can do one thing right -- fill out a tax form. Those that can't even do that are too stupid to trust with self-government. Again, I'm talking in general terms. If you want to bring out specific cases that demonstrate how a brilliant person can be on the dole, fine, we'll exempt them.

Maybe the answer is a little different. We give everyone one vote. Then for every $10,000 of income tax paid we give a person another vote in a federal election. I wouldn't mind having a couple extra votes; I'd be able to cancel out your liberal ass and still get my vote to count:)

These are minor details. I've proposed a first cut at how to reduce the voting population and there are sure to be some things to be worked out. Maybe women shouldn't vote? They almost always vote for security over liberty and that's usually a wrong choice.

People who pay income taxes have, by and large, and in spite of your classist attitudes, demonstrated that they can be counted on to make more good decisions than bad ones. People who get earned income credit payments have demonstrated that they can do one thing right -- fill out a tax form. Those that can't even do that are too stupid to trust with self-government. Again, I'm talking in general terms. If you want to bring out specific cases that demonstrate how a brilliant person can be on the dole, fine, we'll exempt them.

Maybe the answer is a little different. We give everyone one vote. Then for every $10,000 of income tax paid we give a person another vote in a federal election. I wouldn't mind having a couple extra votes; I'd be able to cancel out your liberal ass and still get my vote to count:)
Don't you ever dare to call a liberal an elitist again, not after this ill-conceived and ridiculous statement.

By the way, I qualified for the EIC last year, largely because my daughter lived with me after Hurricane Katrina, and I'm a professional in my field. I'm more informed than most when it comes to political matters, but according to you, I should get less of a say in the government than someone like Paris Fucking Hilton. Thanks a lot.

Thanks for that well presented and even better thought out reply. Kinda makes my side seem even more true, doesn't it?

I think that you are far too isolated in your own little class war to recognize that in the U.S. there are stupid people with enough money to have to pay taxes, and intelligent people who work very poorly-paying jobs and do not pay taxes. The idea that only those who can afford to pay taxes deserve a vote is ludicrous, and you don't need to hear me say that (or, if you do, you make my case perfectly on your own).

Democracy is, for all of its failings, the only system of government that even approaches pluralism. Do remember that John Locke (the philosopher who most influenced the founding fathers) says that in a social contract which is unjust, it is the duty of the people to rise, and to create a government that serves the people.

I can go on, you know. There are a lot of reasons to support a democratic government (the least being that the most educated Americans in the 1700's were not as well educated as some high school drop outs), and few reasons to adopt fully the oligarchy you seem to desire.

I never said the current system is perfect. However, I do believe the current system is the better one, because it forces candidates to look at regional issues, not just big national ones.
Regional issues are mainly for the State governments, not the Federal government, to deal with. In any case, in order to get as many votes as possible under a national popular vote system, any candidate would have to pay attention to regional issues if they were asked of them by the electorate.

Regional issues are mainly for the State governments, not the Federal government, to deal with. In any case, in order to get as many votes as possible under a national popular vote system, any candidate would have to pay attention to regional issues if they were asked of them by the electorate.

Samething with the current system as well. I call that a wash :D

Okay, now you're just being silly. The Electoral College favors some voters over others, i.e. those in battleground states over those in safe states. But the Constitution applies to all, equally, no? So how can removing the Electoral College deprive everyone of that so-called right? Removing the Electoral College allows everyone's vote to count the same, to carry the same weight. You've actually argued against yourself.

No, it favors those in the smaller population states, giving them a greater say then they would get than if it was a one man, one vote system. You are mistaking causes, here. Safe states are not safe because of the college, they are safe because of how the people vote in them. That wouldn't change; under the proposed system you would still have safe and swing states.
And which states are safe and which battleground does change over time - occasionally to the extreme consternation of candidates. But which states have large populations and which don't generally doesn't change.

Except it isn't. As someone noted well back in the thread, even if you assume that one candidate will win every vote of the top ten cities in the US, you're still a hell of a long way off from the majority. I haven't done the math, but I'd be willing to bet you could extrapolate that out to the top 100 cities and you'd still be short of the 60 million or so you'd need to win the presidency, and that assumes you win every vote in those cities. Anyone who ran and figured he or she could concentrate only in the cities would be doomed to lose, and lose big.

You could be right. Bush won a plurality of the popular vote in the last election, so it's possible.

No, it favors those in the smaller population states, giving them a greater say then they would get than if it was a one man, one vote system. You are mistaking causes, here. Safe states are not safe because of the college, they are safe because of how the people vote in them. That wouldn't change; under the proposed system you would still have safe and swing states.
And which states are safe and which battleground does change over time - occasionally to the extreme consternation of candidates. But which states have large populations and which don't generally doesn't change.
Under a system that gets rid of the electoral college, there are no safe and swing states, at least not on the presidential level. Candidates would get votes wherever they could--some no doubt would try to appeal to the population centers, as that strategy appeals on a wholesale level, but a canny politician would see that a truly national appeal would be more likely to a larger number of voters. So you'd have Democrats going into Georgia to rally the faithful, and Republicans would pop up in California to do more than fundraise, because there would be a difference in losing the state by 5 points instead of 10, when right now, there isn't.

Samething with the current system as well. I call that a wash :D
So, how is is possible to argue that a popular vote system would make local issues irrelevant when it is no different in that respect to the electoral college?

Edit: oh for Heaven's sake, NB, drop the [NS]...

Newer Burmecia;12549805']Edit: oh for Heaven's sake, NB, drop the [NS]...
Now, that's better.

You could be right. Bush won a plurality of the popular vote in the last election, so it's possible.

It happens in state elections. The first case that comes to mind is that of the junior Senator from Missouri, Claire McCaskill. Forgive me if I get the details wrong here, but I believe she ran for governor in 2004 and lost a close race, mainly because she killed in the cities and lost huge in the rural communities. When he ran against Jim Talent in 2006, she spent more time in the rural areas. She still lost there, but she limited her losses and won the race overall. And I think Jim Webb did much the same thing in Virginia--he won big in the cities, but if he hadn't done reasonably well in the country, he'd have lost.

Curious that Maryland would wish to do away with the Electoral College. Being such a small state, not having the college means votes out of Maryland won't mean a hill of beans. It would only be more laughable were it Rhode Island pushing this.

Without the Electoral College...NY, LA, and Chicago (i.e: high population, high density areas) will for all intents elect all future Presidents.

Curious that Maryland would wish to do away with the Electoral College. Being such a small state, not having the college means votes out of Maryland won't mean a hill of beans. It would only be more laughable were it Rhode Island pushing this.

Without the Electoral College...NY, LA, and Chicago (i.e: high population, high density areas) will for all intents elect all future Presidents.

Maryland maybe small, but it does have a larger population by square mile (541.9) than Ohio (277.3). However, more politicians campaign in Ohio than Maryland.

Also, no one ever campaigns in Maryland. This is because Democrats ALWAYS win Maryland. Basically, no matter how you vote, you're going to vote Democrat. With this bill, I feel that I'm going to at least have a little more say when I vote.

Maryland maybe small, but it does have a larger population by square mile (541.9) than Ohio (277.3). However, more politicians campaign in Ohio than Maryland.

Also, no one ever campaigns in Maryland. This is because Democrats ALWAYS win Maryland. Basically, no matter how you vote, you're going to vote Democrat. With this bill, I feel that I'm going to at least have a little more say when I vote.
You could always move to another state.

Curious that Maryland would wish to do away with the Electoral College. Being such a small state, not having the college means votes out of Maryland won't mean a hill of beans. It would only be more laughable were it Rhode Island pushing this.

Without the Electoral College...NY, LA, and Chicago (i.e: high population, high density areas) will for all intents elect all future Presidents.
Here's the top 100 cities in the US (http://www.citymayors.com/gratis/uscities_100.html) by population. Note that this is total population, not registered voters. The top 30 (because that's where I got tired of adding) comes to roughly 37 million. In the last Presidential election, the winner received over 60 million votes. I think your fears are a bit ridiculous.

Wait... Maybe I'm misunderstanding something so guys, please help me out.

"The bill, passed in a session of the General Assembly that concluded yesterday, would award the state's 10 electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide -- not statewide. The agreement would not take effect until states that cumulatively hold 270 electoral votes -- the number needed to win a presidential election -- sign on.
"

This sounds like the state would not award its electoral votes until a nationwide majority was reached.... Am I reading that right? If so, then no vote cast in Maryland counts for anything if the electoral votes are going to be decided by a national majority, not within the state...

:confused:

Wait... Maybe I'm misunderstanding something so guys, please help me out.

"The bill, passed in a session of the General Assembly that concluded yesterday, would award the state's 10 electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide -- not statewide. The agreement would not take effect until states that cumulatively hold 270 electoral votes -- the number needed to win a presidential election -- sign on.
"

This sounds like the state would not award its electoral votes until a nationwide majority was reached.... Am I reading that right? If so, then no vote cast in Maryland counts for anything if the electoral votes are going to be decided by a national majority, not within the state...

:confused:

Well, if the national majority of individual voters thought a Republican should win (as we had in the last election), then Maryland voters (who always vote for a Democratic candidate) would lose out.

Wait... Maybe I'm misunderstanding something so guys, please help me out.

"The bill, passed in a session of the General Assembly that concluded yesterday, would award the state's 10 electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes nationwide -- not statewide. The agreement would not take effect until states that cumulatively hold 270 electoral votes -- the number needed to win a presidential election -- sign on.
"

This sounds like the state would not award its electoral votes until a nationwide majority was reached.... Am I reading that right? If so, then no vote cast in Maryland counts for anything if the electoral votes are going to be decided by a national majority, not within the state...

:confused:You're misunderstanding. The current system will stay in place until enough states have joined the compact to reach 270 combined. In other words, the legislation has a trigger, and won't go into effect until those conditions are reached.

You're misunderstanding. The current system will stay in place until enough states have joined the compact to reach 270 combined. In other words, the legislation has a trigger, and won't go into effect until those conditions are reached.

OK... and what happens then? This is important to me as a MD resident ;)

OK... and what happens then? This is important to me as a MD resident ;)
You will figure it out by the time they actually get that many states to agree to adopt this.

OK... and what happens then? This is important to me as a MD resident ;)

basically, if enough states pass this sort of legislations, such that the total electoral college votes of all states doing this totals 270 or more than the MD law will take effect.

It will not until then. So until enough states do this so that the total electoral college votes of that state => 270, it will remain the same

basically, if enough states pass this sort of legislations, such that the total electoral college votes of all states doing this totals 270 or more than the MD law will take effect.

It will not until then. So until enough states do this so that the total electoral college votes of that state => 270, it will remain the same

I understand that part. What I'm trying to understand is what the law will do once it takes effect, because the way the article is worded doesn't make sense to me.

In this case, you would indeed be depriving people of a right - the right to a higher level of influence over the election then they would normally be given through pure numbers. A right enshrined in the constitution through the mechanism of the electoral college.
Ah, the other fallacy of the pro-Electoral College arguers - the utterly absurd idea that your vote counts more in a national election because it is only counted to decide where the states electoral votes go. High-level mathematics couldn't prove that is logical, and high-level mathematics is pretty much a religion because it just makes up shit where it needs it. It is also overruled by the same thing that overrules the other fallacy - the massive gap between the votes of big states and small states. A person's vote in Vermont is not worth more than the vote of a person in California because of the sheer number difference in the amount of electoral votes given to the respective states. The logic was remotely valid when the difference between the biggest state's votes and the smallest's was six, when the Framers wrote it in. Now it is fundamentally flawed.


Okay - there must be some sort of reasoning disconnect going here. Because I don't see any of your argument as actually being relevant to the question. I don't consider you to be stupid, so clearly we're operating on a different wavelength here.
There was no question. I was responding to "the electoral college encourages a political duopoly is a lie." That is patently false. Read what I wrote. The Electoral College makes it all but literally impossible for a third-party candidate to win, and for the same reason the Electoral College is a flawed system. A third-party candidate would have to win the majority of the votes in each state, as opposed to a majority of votes in the entire country. And that is assuming the Democrats and Republicans let them on enough ballots to have a chance to win even if they got the majority of the votes.


Why is this more of a problem for a third-party candidate than for a Rep/Dem?
I'm not even going to answer this.
I understand that many times Presidential candidates of the major parties aren't on every states' ballot.
So you're a foreigner? Presidential candidates are on every state's ballot for the presidential election.


But this is equally true for Rep/Dem candidates.
But the vote isn't split three-ways, and against a person who may not be on enough ballots to even hope to win. The entire system is biased against third-parties, including the Electoral College.

However, I believe you made a small error - the winner of most of the states, I believe, needs only a plurality of the votes
Irrelevant semantics.

If the requiremnt is the same for all candidates, how can it favour one?
It doesn't favor one. It favors 1v1.

In your proposed system, would not the same stricture be required, save on a much larger scale?
Oh yes, direct voting, which would have none of the limits of the electoral system, would of course have all the same problems as the electoral system which are caused by those limits :rolleyes:

I understand that part. What I'm trying to understand is what the law will do once it takes effect, because the way the article is worded doesn't make sense to me.
To make it blatantly simple, which it apparently needs to be, it will bend the rules of the system so that the person who wins the popular vote always wins the election.

To make it blatantly simple, which it apparently needs to be, it will bend the rules of the system so that the person who wins the popular vote always wins the election.

That's what I understood it to read, which I find illogical. It would mean that Maryland's 10 Electoral votes will go to whomever wins the popular vote, irrespective of who would normally have won the state's votes by Statewide election. Essentially, my vote becomes utterly irrelevant no matter who I vote for, because it won't be counted toward the awarding of the Electoral votes.

I understand that part. What I'm trying to understand is what the law will do once it takes effect, because the way the article is worded doesn't make sense to me.

I think I misread your earlier post. So what would happen--assuming enough states do this--is that all the votes nationwide would be counted, and the winner of the popular vote would get the electoral votes of the states in the compact, no matter whether the candidate won that state or not. The idea is to turn the presidential election into a nationwide direct vote instead of a state by state election. The idea is that if every vote counts, then the presidential election won't come down to a handful of battleground states. Candidates will have reason to go to places they would otherwise ignore, and people in minority parties would have a better reason to go to the polls and vote.

I think I misread your earlier post. So what would happen--assuming enough states do this--is that all the votes nationwide would be counted, and the winner of the popular vote would get the electoral votes of the states in the compact, no matter whether the candidate won that state or not. The idea is to turn the presidential election into a nationwide direct vote instead of a state by state election. The idea is that if every vote counts, then the presidential election won't come down to a handful of battleground states. Candidates will have reason to go to places they would otherwise ignore, and people in minority parties would have a better reason to go to the polls and vote.

Alright now that makes sense to me... so in that case the Maryland individual votes would be countes as part of the nationwide vote and thus the Electoral Votes would then be awarded to that winner.

I like the idea of switching to a popular vote rather than the Electoral system. As I recall, the Electoral system was a way of compensating for the vast size of the country and the slowness of communication. Since we don't have a problem anymore with communication speed, we no longer need the system. To me, a Constitutional Ammendment eliminating the Electoral College altogether would be the ideal course, but until then, this new legislation seems like a reasonable step in the right direction.

Thanks for the clarification, Nazz.

That's what I understood it to read, which I find illogical. It would mean that Maryland's 10 Electoral votes will go to whomever wins the popular vote, irrespective of who would normally have won the state's votes by Statewide election. Essentially, my vote becomes utterly irrelevant no matter who I vote for, because it won't be counted toward the awarding of the Electoral votes.

But it will count toward the awarding of electoral votes, if your candidate wins overall. And it will count in more than your state--it will count in other states as well, because the overall winner will get those electoral votes.

Newer Burmecia;12549805']So, how is is possible to argue that a popular vote system would make local issues irrelevant when it is no different in that respect to the electoral college?

None. I'm no objecting to the Issues side of it. I'm arguing against it because it would not go with what the people want if they vote in the majority for a candidate that did not win the popular vote.

That's what I understood it to read, which I find illogical. It would mean that Maryland's 10 Electoral votes will go to whomever wins the popular vote, irrespective of who would normally have won the state's votes by Statewide election. Essentially, my vote becomes utterly irrelevant no matter who I vote for, because it won't be counted toward the awarding of the Electoral votes.

And that is why I oppose this legislation.

None. I'm no objecting to the Issues side of it. I'm arguing against it because it would not go with what the people want if they vote in the majority for a candidate that did not win the popular vote.

So it's better to let people in non-competitive states feel like their presidential votes don't count? I can't agree with that.

There was no question. I was responding to "the electoral college encourages a political duopoly is a lie." That is patently false. Read what I wrote. The Electoral College makes it all but literally impossible for a third-party candidate to win, and for the same reason the Electoral College is a flawed system. A third-party candidate would have to win the majority of the votes in each state, as opposed to a majority of votes in the entire country. And that is assuming the Democrats and Republicans let them on enough ballots to have a chance to win even if they got the majority of the votes.

"The Electoral College makes it all but literally impossible for a third-party candidate to win". Great statement. Given that you appear unable to substantiate it, I must consider it nothing but empty rhetoric.

Put up or shut up.

I'm not even going to answer this.

Then you admit I am correct.


So you're a foreigner? Presidential candidates are on every state's ballot for the presidential election.

Not if they haven't registered as such in the state in question.


But the vote isn't split three-ways, and against a person who may not be on enough ballots to even hope to win. The entire system is biased against third-parties, including the Electoral College.

So you keep saying, yet you seem utterly unable to explain any such said bias in the College. If you can't explain it, I have to assume you're wrong.


Irrelevant semantics.

If you consider the difference between a Majority and a Plurality irrelevant you have no business debating anything.


It doesn't favor one. It favors 1v1.


EXPLAIN!!!!


Oh yes, direct voting, which would have none of the limits of the electoral system, would of course have all the same problems as the electoral system which are caused by those limits :rolleyes:

Yes, it would, because the problem ISN'T caused by the Electoral College! You are confusing causes!

So it's better to let people in non-competitive states feel like their presidential votes don't count? I can't agree with that.

Its a damned if they do and damned if they don't situation in this regard.

Its a damned if they do and damned if they don't situation in this regard.

No, it isn't. There's a way for them not to be damned--get rid of the influence of the Electoral College and let them vote for the President directly.

No, it isn't. There's a way for them not to be damned--get rid of the influence of the Electoral College and let them vote for the President directly.

That would require a Constitutional Amendment.

That's what I understood it to read, which I find illogical. It would mean that Maryland's 10 Electoral votes will go to whomever wins the popular vote, irrespective of who would normally have won the state's votes by Statewide election. Essentially, my vote becomes utterly irrelevant no matter who I vote for, because it won't be counted toward the awarding of the Electoral votes.
So you arn't allowed to vote in US elections? That is the only way your vote wouldn't count.

That would require a Constitutional Amendment.

Obviously, as this thread has shown, it wouldn't. Notice, I didn't say "get rid of the Electoral College." I said, "get rid of the influence of the Electoral College." Big difference.

That would require a Constitutional Amendment.

No, it wouldn't. The method of selection for the electors a state sends to the electoral college are left to it in the Constitution.

No, it wouldn't. The method of selection for the electors a state sends to the electoral college are left to it in the Constitution.

Indeed BUT I'll tell ya right now that someone will file a lawsuit against it IF it ever got activated.

Indeed BUT I'll tell ya right now that someone will file a lawsuit against it IF it ever got activated.

And they would lose, immediately. The Constitution is clear on this.

And they would lose, immediately. The Constitution is clear on this.

In today's justice world, never assume anything :D

Indeed BUT I'll tell ya right now that someone will file a lawsuit against it IF it ever got activated.

More legal analysis from our eminent scholar?

On what grounds, pray tell?

What's interesting to note when discussing this legislation is something folks should keep in mind. There is no constitutional right to vote for president, or even vote in any presidential election.

What's interesting to note when discussing this legislation is something folks should keep in mind. There is no constitutional right to vote for president, or even vote in any presidential election.

A point that Scalia, I believe, emphasized in Bush v Gore. Indeed, if ever there were a reason to go the amendment route in this fight, including that right would be a strong one. Unfortunately, I think the chances of an amendment passing before this end-run does are slim at best.

A point that Scalia, I believe, emphasized in Bush v Gore. Indeed, if ever there were a reason to go the amendment route in this fight, including that right would be a strong one. Unfortunately, I think the chances of an amendment passing before this end-run does are slim at best.

Not just emphasized. That particular point was the issue upon which the whole case turned on.

But can't say for certain Scalia said it, though it sounds like something he'd say. The decision was Per Curiam

What's interesting to note when discussing this legislation is something folks should keep in mind. There is no constitutional right to vote for president, or even vote in any presidential election.

Indeed.

Not just emphasized. That particular point was the issue upon which the whole case turned on.

But can't say for certain Scalia said it, though it sounds like something he'd say. The decision was Per Curiam

The Florida 2000 case was such a debacle on so many levels. I remember briefly hearing Republican state legislators (I wasn't a resident then) talk about how if the recounts dragged on, that they would simply name the electors they wanted themselves--a way to pressure the state Supreme Court. And they might have, if SCOTUS hadn't bailed them out. I wish they had done it, because the backlash would have been tremendous. If only.

And the same goes for the 2004 Ohio election. If Kerry had won Ohio and become president while losing the popular vote, we'd be halfway to an amendment right now, you can bet your ass.

And the same goes for the 2004 Ohio election. If Kerry had won Ohio and become president while losing the popular vote, we'd be halfway to an amendment right now, you can bet your ass.

Probably not on the amendment track if Kerry did what Bush did in 2000. Remember Nazz, elections like that are a rarity.

Probably not on the amendment track if Kerry did what Bush did in 2000. Remember Nazz, elections like that are a rarity.

If we'd had two of them in a row, each favoring the other party, there would have been an immediate push from the right to see an amendment happen, and the left, still smarting from the 2000 election would have gotten on board. We would have heard every Republican politician who was praising the system in 2000 condemning it in 2004, and throwing in connections to Iraq and the so-called war on terror at every opportunity.

If we'd had two of them in a row, each favoring the other party, there would have been an immediate push from the right to see an amendment happen, and the left, still smarting from the 2000 election would have gotten on board.

Or they would've have considered it a wash. Besides, in all fairness, 2000 should have been decided in the US House of Representatives.

We would have heard every Republican politician who was praising the system in 2000 condemning it in 2004, and throwing in connections to Iraq and the so-called war on terror at every opportunity.

Now that's a conspiracy theory on the last part. On the first part, you'll hear the Democratic politicians praising it in 2004 after they condemned it in 2000.

Or they would've have considered it a wash. Besides, in all fairness, 2000 should have been decided in the US House of Representatives.Based on what?



Now that's a conspiracy theory on the last part. On the first part, you'll hear the Democratic politicians praising it in 2004 after they condemned it in 2000.
I do not think that phrase means what you think it means. ;)

Certainly there would have been some switching on the Democratic side as well, but there's been a move in the Democratic caucus for years to get rid of the electoral college, and they're doing most of the heavy lifting on this state by state initiative, so there would be some support as well.

Based on what?

The major controversy down in Florida over the recount! Florida's votes should have not gone to anyone if you want my full honest opinion.

I do not think that phrase means what you think it means. ;)

So now you're telling me what I'm thinking now? :rolleyes:

Certainly there would have been some switching on the Democratic side as well, but there's been a move in the Democratic caucus for years to get rid of the electoral college, and they're doing most of the heavy lifting on this state by state initiative, so there would be some support as well.

Some yes but not an overwhelming support.

The major controversy down in Florida over the recount! Florida's votes should have not gone to anyone if you want my full honest opinion.

The state Supreme Court had jurisdiction, and even the conservatives on SCOTUS knew it. That's why they had to write such a crap ruling and then say that the ruling could not be used as precedent. The state has the power to determine their electors--that's what the constitution says. It says nothing about how the state has to do it, but SCOTUS found a way to interfere. That's the greatest travesty to come out of Florida 2000.

The state Supreme Court had jurisdiction, and even the conservatives on SCOTUS knew it. That's why they had to write such a crap ruling and then say that the ruling could not be used as precedent. The state has the power to determine their electors--that's what the constitution says. It says nothing about how the state has to do it, but SCOTUS found a way to interfere. That's the greatest travesty to come out of Florida 2000.

Was I disputing that Florida has the right to choose their own electors? No I am not. I'm saying that Florida's number of electors should have been thrown out because of all the controversy surrounding the recount. That is what I am saying.

If there was ever a case to get results thrown out, it should have been then, in 2000 and NOT in 2004 (even though those that brought it foward voted against it)

Was I disputing that Florida has the right to choose their own electors? No I am not. I'm saying that Florida's number of electors should have been thrown out because of all the controversy surrounding the recount. That is what I am saying.


Under what mechanism? Under what law? How could you POSSIBLY do that? There is no procedure to do such a thing.

You can't just toss out the votes of the electors because you think their vote is "controversial". The vote of the electors is constitutionally empowered, you can't simply take that away because you don't like what happened.

Probably not on the amendment track if Kerry did what Bush did in 2000. Remember Nazz, elections like that are a rarity.
Remember, then, "rarity" != "does not happen." And in cases where we can reach "does not happen" why should we settle for "rarity"?

Probably not on the amendment track if Kerry did what Bush did in 2000. Remember Nazz, elections like that are a rarity.

*shrug* 4 out of 54 is not all that rare

Under what mechanism? Under what law? How could you POSSIBLY do that? There is no procedure to do such a thing.

Actually, yes there is such a procedure. Look at what happened with Ohio in 2004. We can also look at other elections where it did occur. I forget the Administration that won because of it off the top of my head.

You can't just toss out the votes of the electors because you think their vote is "controversial".

Dems tried it with Ohio though they voted against it. *shrugs*

The vote of the electors is constitutionally empowered, you can't simply take that away because you don't like what happened.

I was not taking it away. That would require a Constitutional Amendment. I'm saying because of the controversy and the closeness of the race (500 votes) and the way that the recounts were being handled, a case can be made (and I"m not going to say why because no matter my answer, you'll tell me I'm wrong) to throw out their electoral votes. If that happened, the President would have been decided in the House with Vice President done by the Senate.

*shrug* 4 out of 54 is not all that rare

Did you happen to look at the interval of when the last election was like this? To me, that makes it rare as it occured well over a hundred years ago.

Actually, yes there is such a procedure. Look at what happened with Ohio in 2004.
You know? I don't seem to recall Ohio's electoral votes being thrown out in 2004.

Actually, yes there is such a procedure. Look at what happened with Ohio in 2004. We can also look at other elections where it did occur. I forget the Administration that won because of it off the top of my head.

And as Ohio is not Florida, what is allowable under Ohio law doesn't really affect Florida law, does it?

I was not taking it away. That would require a Constitutional Amendment. I'm saying because of the controversy and the closeness of the race (500 votes) and the way that the recounts were being handled, a case can be made (and I"m not going to say why because no matter my answer, you'll tell me I'm wrong) to throw out their electoral votes. If that happened, the President would have been decided in the House with Vice President done by the Senate.

I'm going to say your'e wrong because of the fact that you are wrong. The method by which electors are chosen is decided by each individual state. The mechanisms for appointing, replacing, and dismissing electors is decided by the state. That is by the constitution.

You can't make any "case" about it for the simple fact that florida, at that time, had NO mechanism to do such a thing. The state of florida had no law by which the electors could be recalled and no votes issued.

Likewise the constitution contains no mention of how votes from a state can be voided. No law exists in florida, no law exists in the constitution.

By 2000 there was absolutely no method for the electoral voters to NOT vote. There was simply no procedural mechanism to allow that to happen.

I'm not sure what bizarro land of legal make believe you live in, where electoral votes can be quashed just because someone feels like it, but here in the real world, those procedures are described by state law and must conform to state law.

No case can be made, no argument sucessful, no theory expounded upon. Florida lacked any mechanism by which they could withold their electoral votes. The constitution lacks any mechanism by which the votes by the floridal electorate could be ignored.

There is simply no procedure to allow this to happen.

Did you happen to look at the interval of when the last election was like this? To me, that makes it rare as it occured well over a hundred years ago.
Has the electoral system effectively changed in those 100 years? No. Your objection is moot.

Has the electoral system effectively changed in those 100 years? No. Your objection is moot.

ACtually it has with the right to vote given over to women and to kids 18yo on up. :D

ACtually it has with the right to vote given over to women and to kids 18yo on up. :D

absolutly none of which changed the electoral system, as neither changed the procedure by which the president is elected.

absolutly none of which changed the electoral system, as neither changed the procedure by which the president is elected.

I know that hence the :D

ACtually it has with the right to vote given over to women and to kids 18yo on up. :D
Sarcasm aside, the process is still the same and thus the objection that "it last happened over a hundred years ago!" is moot.

The point is this so called Electorial College thing is crap. The point is your vote doesnt matter to these people in this system. They look at what they THINK is what the people want. The point of direct voting is that YOU are teh one voting. With Kerry and Bush, my bets would have to be that tehy would had a tie or very close to it. Imagine if we had third parties running with direct voting at that time in 2000...we could of had a very interesting election with a winner that was clear to the MAJORITY of votes.

Its about time we all look the situation and make it reality and fair to us voters.

The point is this so called Electorial College thing is crap. The point is your vote doesnt matter to these people in this system. They look at what they THINK is what the people want.

That is why there have been very few faithless electors in the Electoral College and why some states have state laws forbidding their electors from going against the will of the people of their state :rolleyes:

The point of direct voting is that YOU are teh one voting. With Kerry and Bush, my bets would have to be that tehy would had a tie or very close to it.

Take a look at the popular vote total.

Imagine if we had third parties running with direct voting at that time in 2000...we could of had a very interesting election with a winner that was clear to the MAJORITY of votes.

Very very difficult for a third party to get going. Neither party wants it.

Its about time we all look the situation and make it reality and fair to us voters.

Its already fair.

That is why there have been very few faithless electors in the Electoral College and why some states have state laws forbidding their electors from going against the will of the people of their state :rolleyes:

Nice sarcasm and not a true response.



Take a look at the popular vote total.

Your point?



Very very difficult for a third party to get going. Neither party wants it.

Never said it WOULD BE EASY. IT SHOULDNT be. BUT the point is its almost IMPOSSIBLE to even get one started right now because of this system.



Its already fair.


Far from it. Especially when my vote actually doesnt go towards anything. Especially when the electees of this College only go for what the lobbists want or the interest groups and not what individuals want. PLUS an idividual vote will never equal anything whena select few vote for what they think everyoen else wants. A vote is a vote, not one vote supposally covering many votes.