Forum Post: The Electoral College Sucks - Make Every Vote Count!
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 17, 2011, 9:15 p.m. EST by UnitedAmericaParty
(7)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Sign the petition: http://uaparty.org/take-action/action-center/national-voting-reform/
Equality is fundamental to representative democracy. Every vote should be equal when electing the President of the United States. Our current Electoral College system, grounded in state law, leads presidential candidates to concentrate their resources on voters in a handful of swing states, relegating the vast majority of the country to spectator status.
The United America Party supports the direct election of the president, and supports the National Popular Vote plan to ensure that every vote for president is equally valued no matter where it is cast.
The National Popular Vote Plan, an interstate compact, is an agreement among U.S. states designed to replace current state rules governing the electoral college system of presidential elections with rules guaranteeing election of the national popular vote winner.The compact preserves the Electoral College, while ensuring that every vote in every state will matter in every presidential election. TAs of August 2011, this interstate compact has been joined by eight states (see map) and the District of Columbia; their 132 combined electoral votes amount to 49% of the 270 needed for the compact to take effect.
Every vote cast in every election should be of equal value, regardless of where a voter lives or for whom they vote. Americans deserve a system in which a diversity of voices can be part of the debate; one that is transparent, accountable and honors equality and majority rule.
Check out more of what the United America Party stands for at www.uaparty.org
I just signed this.
I did
That little sh*t should wear a dress already. LG, that is.
Thanks Tanner!
I signed - but is there anything that I can do now. Also, is there a way to find out which states this needs to be voted on in still. I have some connections in South Carolina ;-)
We are encouraged that the National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed or voted for by 2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill. It has passed 31 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, Vermont, and Washington. These nine jurisdictions possess 132 electoral votes -- 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
The latest edition of Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote, is available as a free download via http://www.every-vote-equal.com/
Chapter 10 - Responses to Myths about the National Popular Vote, answers questions and concerns you or others might have.
Other possible ways to help:
Check out the options at http://www.nationalpopularvote.com under "Take Action"
Write your state legislator and Governor http://nationalpopularvote.com/write/
Sign up to get email updates - http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/getemailupdates.php
Tell a friend - http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/tellafriend.php
Put a link to National Popular Vote onto your web page. http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/downloadad.php
Add our poll to your web site http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polladd.php
Help us get the word out in groups you are active in. Post on discussion groups.
Write letters to editors, OpEds, and/or blog.
Distribute literature at political, civic, or other meeting, convention, or conference.
Up-to-date information and materials are at http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/explanation.php
Responses to myths about the National Popular Vote bill are at http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers.php
Frequently Asked Questions are answered via http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/faq.php
To stay up-to-date, join us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2208145434# and invite your friends.
Does this mean we give Texas to Mexico before or after the Amendment?
I just signed. Thanks
Done!
I don't agree with this. As others on this thread have noted the electoral college exists to protect the rights of disparate groups, notably rural populations. In a straight majority vote the candidates would spend all of their time and energy appealing to a single population, the urban base, and ignoring the needs of rural individuals. Because the unit at which the Constitution worked was at the state level it did this by states guaranteeing that each state would have a say. While I understand why it seems undemocratic, particularly in light of recent elections, I don't want a system that allows politicians to feather their beds by making one class of the populations (urbanites) happy by telling all others to stick it any more than I am happy that the current financial influence allows them to make the 1% happy and tell the rest of us to stick it. It's not that I have anything against urbanites but I see the electoral college as a balancing mechanism not a push against democracy.
Although state legislatures frequently chose presidential electors in the nation's early years, the last time when presidential electors were chosen by a state legislature was the 1876 election. Thus, if anyone thinks it is appropriate to characterize the American electorate as a "mob," it is now a long-settled fact that the "mob" rules in presidential elections. Similarly, if anyone wishes to characterize our nation's elections as a "popularity contest," it is a long-settled fact that presidential elections are "popularity contests."
The National Popular Vote bill is not concerned with the long-settled question of whether the people should be permitted to vote for President. The bill is concerned with whether popular votes are tallied on a state-by-state basis versus a nationwide basis. The currently prevailing winner-take-all rule (i.e., awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular vote in a state) makes popular votes unequal from state to state. The National Popular Vote bill is concerned with the relative political importance of popular votes cast in different states for presidential electors. Under the current system, presidential candidates concentrate their attention on voters from a small handful of closely divided battleground states, while ignoring voters in the vast majority of the states. The National Popular Vote bill would address this shortcoming of the current system by making every vote equally important throughout the United States. Thus, the issue presented by the National Popular Vote bill is not whether the "mob" will vote for President, but whether the "mobs" in closely divided battleground states are more equal than others.
Some states are trying to make it more uneven by awarding electoral votes based on gerrymandered congressional districts. The games never seem to end.
Some states? Most states currently have gerrymandered districts.
I guess I wasn't clear. They are putting together laws to have electoral votes be decided by congressional districts rather than by the state as a whole. Because the districts are gerrymandered, as state that gave all its electoral votes to Obama last time would give only a portion to him under this plan. Voters are divided by voting inclination so that the state representatives and senators are Republican, although if the entire state is counted as one block, Democrats can win.
The test case for this right now is Pennsylvania which is dominated by two urban regions, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh. Those regions essentially drive the votes both for state-level races and for the federal elections. The current governor of Pennsylvania is a Republican who has proposed this because he wants the rural counties, which lean heavily republican, to be counted. This is in response to the fact that Obama won Pennsylvania by a margin.
The catch is that the cities are still the population centers and he also won by appealing to them like battleground states and more or less taking the rural population for granted. As a consequence there is little evidence to suggest that this district model or the statewide popular model would change the behavior much.
It should also be noted that when the Electoral College was established, the President was the person that received the most electors and the Vice President received the second most electors.
An Electoral College made more sense in the past, as this would have guaranteed that your President & VP had a majority of States.
90% of the democracies in the world have direct voting. The USA and its Electoral College are an exception. Do you really think it's a fair thing when 49% of Californians vote for a presidential candidate, and their vote is ignored, and the candidate who got 51% of the popular votes gets ALL the votes from California in the Electoral College?
You can fix the system of elector votes to do it by percentage. For example, in the case above, the 55 California would split into 23 for the 51% and 22 for the 49%. It prevents the improper representation in LearnSomeHistory's post while preventing the problem in SwiftJohn's post.
Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence. This was the most telling argument that caused Colorado voters to agree with Republican Governor Owens and to reject this proposal in November 2004 by a two-to-one margin.
If the proportional approach were implemented by a state, on its own,, it would have to allocate its electoral votes in whole numbers. If a current battleground state were to change its winner-take-all statute to a proportional method for awarding electoral votes, presidential candidates would pay less attention to that state because only one electoral vote would probably be at stake in the state.
The proportional method also could result in third party candidates winning electoral votes that would deny either major party candidate the necessary majority vote of electors and throw the process into Congress to decide.
If the whole-number proportional approach had been in use throughout the country in the nation’s closest recent presidential election (2000), it would not have awarded the most electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes nationwide. Instead, the result would have been a tie of 269–269 in the electoral vote, even though Al Gore led by 537,179 popular votes across the nation. The presidential election would have been thrown into Congress to decide and resulted in the election of the second-place candidate in terms of the national popular vote.
A system in which electoral votes are divided proportionally by state would not accurately reflect the nationwide popular vote and would not make every vote equal.
It would penalize states, such as Montana, that have only one U.S. Representative even though it has almost three times more population than other small states with one congressman. It would penalize fast-growing states that do not receive any increase in their number of electoral votes until after the next federal census. It would penalize states with high voter turnout (e.g., Utah, Oregon).
Moreover, the fractional proportional allocation approach does not assure election of the winner of the nationwide popular vote. In 2000, for example, it would have resulted in the election of the second-place candidate.
A national popular vote is the way to make every person's vote equal and matter to their candidate because it guarantees that the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states and DC becomes President.
Huh, that's actually really good. I think it's time to go popular vote.
The problem that I want to avoid is a problem that has, in fact, occurred in some other democracies such as England where the centrality of one or more large urban populations has caused them to effectively decide all governance forcing those who merely grow food to be left out.
I hadn't thought about the changes you proposed Chany. let me think about them.
Well our system of government is quite different - all of our elected leaders do not come from our legislature (i.e. we don't have a Prime Minister).
And last I checked we don't have a monarch and we have a constitution (unlike the UK).
Additionally, this is not about abolishing the legislature, Senate, or House set-up. This is about whether to tally the votes on the national level or a state level.
Yes but my worry is that the urban centers will simply determine the national politics by making the two parties compete for them and ignore other less populous but still important constituencies. So while this is not about abolishing the bicameral system it is still a change that I don't see being beneficial. Rather I see it as attacking symptoms, the battleground states and gerrymandering, rather than the disease, the two parties. Rather than ending the two party dominance I fear that the NPV would uphold it.
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote.
If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.
In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.
There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.
Well I have not watched California closely enough but have paid attention to the perennial battleground of Pennsylvania. There, unfortunately that is exactly what happens. Pittsburgh and Philadelphia control the state and the question is only whether the R's can move enough people in those two big D blocks to change their minds to win. As a consequence those two tend to dominate the politics. Yes the politicians visit the rural areas but the divide within the state looks exactly like what I fear NPV might bring at a national level.
It is true that the cities themselves do not equal a mass of the U.S. population but the urban east and large urban areas such as the LA area are dominant features of the U.S. And now most Americans live in cities or suburbs. As such I do not feel comfortable moving to NPV when we have two parties that I fear would simply pander to them in the way they pander to Wall Street now.
Sorry for misinterpreting your post, SwiftJohn. I hadn't thought of that in terms of rural vs. urban, I was looking at in terms of population, like our Founding Fathers did.
Well I would argue that they were thinking of rural vs. urban as well at least in part. In my opinion they were not as universally undemocratic as we presently view them. It is true that John Adams was profoundly uncomfortable with masses of people but I don't think that Jefferson shared his views, neither did Franklin. Washington was certainly anti-royalty but that isn't the same as being pro-democracy.
I think that your suggestion may have some merits. When you think about it there are a number of proposals to reform or replace the electoral college on the table. Some such as the Purple state movement (allocate the votes proportionally within the state) try to cut the difference without changing the state cohesion while others such as NPV simply try to do away with it.
I'm just always leery of removing the electoral college because I've already seen how some states will become effectively ruled by the cities at the expense of other regions and I'd hate to see the U.S. become like England where London sometimes seems, at least to me, to determine the fates of all.
The National Popular Vote bill is state-based. It preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College, instead of the current 48 state-by-state winner-take-all system. It assures that every vote is equal and that every voter will matter in every state in every presidential election, as in virtually every other election in the country.
I don't agree with this. As others on this thread have noted the electoral college exists to protect the rights of disparate groups, notably rural populations. In a straight majority vote the candidates would spend all of their time and energy appealing to a single population, the urban base, and ignoring the needs of rural individuals. Because the unit at which the Constitution worked was at the state level it did this by states guaranteeing that each state would have a say. While I understand why it seems undemocratic, particularly in light of recent elections, I don't want a system that allows politicians to feather their beds by making one class of the populations (urbanites) happy by telling all others to stick it any more than I am happy that the current financial influence allows them to make the 1% happy and tell the rest of us to stick it. It's not that I have anything against urbanites but I see the electoral college as a balancing mechanism not a push against democracy.
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to over 2/3rds of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only the current handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters ignored.
Voter turnout in the "battleground" states has been 67%, while turnout in the "spectator" states was 61%.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote.
If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election.
In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.
There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.
Now political clout comes from being a battleground state.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws, presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive,in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine -- 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah - 70%, Vermont -- 75%, West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.
In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers -- including one house in DC, Delaware, Maine, and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state. The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored.
I see the problem with that not being a problem of the electoral college but a problem that we have 2 dominant parties that decide all thus making each state into a two-way split or a wholly captive entity. I don't believe that the NPV will improve things only ending the two party dominance will. With a national popular vote then rather than appealing to the smaller populations in the states that you cite I expect that they will simply start appealing to the battlegrounds of the population centers and states like Idaho or the Dakotas and unique states like Alaska or Hawaii would, in my view, still be ignored.
BINGO ! We have a winner ! This is ALSO why each state gets TWO Senators and thus equal say in the upper house REGARDLESS of their population.
Both the Founding Fathers AND the leaders of the States were WELL AWARE of the potential for a TYRANNY OF THE MAJORITY , and they constructed a system designed to ensure that people in the less populous states would still have a VOICE when speaking against the population centers in Boston, Philadelphia, New York, etc.
The Founding Fathers intended that the Electoral College would consist of "wise men" who would deliberate on the choice of the President and select the best candidate. They also thought that the Electoral College would provide a buffer against the will of the people. However, neither of these visions was realized in practice because the Founding Fathers did not anticipate the emergence of political parties and competitive presidential elections.
Political parties emerged as soon as George Washington announced that he would not run for a third term in 1796. The competition for power was between the Federalist party (represented by John Adams) and the anti-Federalist party (represented by Thomas Jefferson). Both the Federalist and anti-Federalist parties nominated their presidential and vice-presidential candidates at a national meeting composed of the party's members of Congress. As soon as there were national nominees, both parties presented the public with candidates for the position of presidential elector. These elector candidates made it known that they intended to act as willing "rubberstamps" for their party's nominees when the Electoral College met. All but one of the presidential electors then dutifully voted as expected when the Electoral College met in 1796. The expectation that presidential electors should "act" and not "think" was thus established in the 1796 election,and this expectation has persisted to this day. Of the 21,915 electoral votes cast for President in the nation's 55 presidential elections, only 11 were cast in an unexpected way.
The fact is that the Electoral College never acted as a buffer or damper against popular passions under the current system.Likewise, the Electoral College will not act as a buffer or damper against popular passions under the National Popular Vote plan. The National Popular Vote bill concerns how popular votes are tallied (statewide versus nationwide). The National Popular Vote bill would operate in the context of a system in which the people vote directly for presidential electors in all the states and the presidential electors cast their votes in accordance with the will of the voters who elected them.
Correct.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party's dedicated activists.
That's fine. Do you support an ID required for voting though?
Yes, but I don't support the new laws that ask for impossible information to get that ID. Right now in Florida in order to get a new or renew your driver's license, a person has to bring with them all their marriage licenses. Even if you have a driver's license, have brought a current marriage license in as ID for that license, you now have to bring in any and all past marriage licenses to get your driver's license or Florida ID. Now, for some this is no problem. But, considering that 50% of all marriages end in divorce, this means you better know where your original marriage license is for all your marriages, or you have to find out how to get one and how much it will cost. And, what if you get married overseas, as I did one time. That means, if you don't have an original where the heck will you get it., and then it has to be translated. Think of this entire process. Does a man have this problem? Well, he does need his marriage licenses. My husband was married out of the country to a past wife. He has no idea where that marriage license is and now will have to find out how to get it. Of course, neither of us should have to do any of this since we are U.S. citizens with birth certificates saying we were born here and, of course, my husband still has his birth name. I on the other hand, understand they need some form of proof of what my name is now, and when I married 2 years ago, I gave them that information and changed my name on my license. But, to make me give them information on my entire past married life seems a bit BIG BROTHER to me. BUT WORSE!!!! it makes it VERY difficult for me to register to vote if I have not done so already, not to mention its sexist, and certainly discriminatory. But, still, I think you need to have an ID of some sort to vote so no one else can use your registration and vote again. Including the holder of that registration form. Maybe the best way to do this would be to have a real voters' registration card, not the paper they give us now, and on that card, have a photo of the voter. All in one ID. This would not help the people who want to make it extraordinarily hard on the voters to actually use their right to vote, so that won't be done. Those who think this is a game played by politicians to get votes or prevent votes, should think again. While I am in what is called the lower upper income or the higher middle income, the governments trying to make it hard to vote can certainly make it difficult for me to get some sort of ID, but what about those who are not as fortunate as I? Paying for stamped original copies of information asked for by the state goverment such as birth certificates, marriage licenses, etc. is going to be costly. And, what about those of us who are really senior citizens, who never had a birth certificate, maybe never had a marriage license, how will they be able to get ID? This is just not what I thought this country would ever go back to. I am so sad that the goverment, both state and federal, would allow this sort of thing to happen. Shame on us for allowing them to do it.
Damn. That's BS. Shouldn't have to go through all that for an ID.
The Electoral College was put in place by our founding fathers to protect against large populus areas like L.A., and N.Y., from dominating elections. If we have a popular election, candidates could get elected just by winning a few large cities. That would be bad news for you farmers and anyone living out west. You would not count enough votes.
As it is now, they must carry numerous states. Our problem is that polling has made it possible for candidates to know their standing before the election. This lets them put all their efforts into campaigning in only those states that are closely contested.
The electoral college was put in place to prevent real Democracy from occurring. The Founding fathers put many impediments in the way of real democracy as frightened as they were by the masses. Democracy means rule by the majority, it's a simple concept. The logic of large majorities overwhelming small minorities is ridiculous and non-sensical. You say "candidates could be elected by winning just a few large cities,'????????? WTF????? Are you kidding me? Candidates win by winning a majority of the votes like in probably every other place in the world. Only in America, could someone win the majority by a significant margin (Gore) and the minority candidate win (Bush). The college is a throwback to when the Wealthy needed the mechanism to protect their interests. It is undemocratic, non-sensical and absurd. The reasons for it have been examined by political scientists and none of the rational holds up. Democracy is suppose to reflect the interests of actual humans not pieces of real estate (States). Already, we have another institution which gives massive power to under-populated states (the Senate) and it should be abolished ASAP. Wyoming with a population of a mere 600,000 people has the same number of Senators as Calif.!!!!! The ten most populated states with a population of over half the total population of the U.S. has the same number of Senators as the 10 least populated states whose total population represents less than 5% of the that to the U.S. as a whole. The whole system we have is massively antiquated and long overdue for an overhaul. No doubt the Plutocracy loves all this because it makes it easier to maintain their control of the govt.
The Senate is necessary to insure small states like Wyoming don't get trampled and have no voice. The House insures larger populations are heard based on the number of people effected.
Some systems are better then others for electing officials but all are subject to corruption.
Dude, I see you have learned your American history from you high school teachers. This is what theoretical supporters always say. The logical fallacy is that you are telling me that a piece of real estate (Wyoming and the people who live therein) have to be protected from the devastating votes of those who want to destroy it. Makes no sense. We are not protecting real estate here. The interests of the people of Wyoming have more in common with the people everywhere. If, for example, there are farmers there, are there not farmers everywhere? If there are miners there, are there not miners everywhere? If there are school teachers there, are there not school teachers everywhere. To divide the country into states and declare that each state has certain specific rights and entitlements is bullshit, pure and simply. The bicameral legislature came about as a compromise to pacify small states. We understand the origins. The point is that it is unfair, and undemocratic. And, to make matters far worse, trying to get a bill through two legislatures ensures the wealthy can more easier stymie and thwart the will of the people.
Some states tend to be Industrial States. Others tend to be agricultural and so on. What policy is good for one isn't necessarily good for all. I'd say you are trying to simplify things far to much with the whole cookie cutter what is good for one is good for all mentality.
I understand the need to defend the status quo and stay stuck by inertia. The world of 1786 is totally different from today's world. Nearly all countries who have evaluated systems of govt. in the later modern period, have all rejected our Constitutional structure as they recognize the massive failings. A classic example of a country which adopted much of it and which has problems it can not resolve since the Plutocracy rules there, is Mexico. Diehards defenders of the system there will always be. Just goes to show how good indoctrination is. The psychological need to believe in a dogma typically transcends rational and critical thinking. If you want change, they you have to opt for progressive and critical thinking. It sounds like you are pretty comfortable and do not want much change. Typically, the formula for change is as follows: Dis-satisfaction/suffering (Conditions) + Ideas, Leadership (Catalyst) = Change. I submit to you that you are not suffering enough and are one of the beneficiaries of the system in place. To the degree that your personal situation changes, to that degree you will be open to more critical ideas. This is an essential truth of reality.
Checks and balances. You need them. They are supposed to be there in our current system but it fails because the same money running the Senate is running the House. As long as we have two predominantly strong parties like we do any one elected is a puppet.
It's not necessary to throw the baby out with the bath water. We just need to get away from electing career politicians and following party lines. It's easy to demand things be set as the majority wants it until you find yourself permanently in the minority then the pill is tough to swallow.
Ideology shouldn't be formulated via movies and bubble gum wrappers. The system of government we have isn't all that's bad as it was intended. Unfortunately it is corrupted. Start working at cleaning up the corruption. Don't reinvent the wheel just find a way to make sure the air stays in the tire.
I would prefer a parliamentary system, much more sensible. You can get rid of the party in charge and the prime minister lickety-split compared to our system. The bicameral legislature here makes any legislation a recipe for disaster (too many cooks and this is where special interests enter in and corrupt the process. Actually, many lobbyists end up largely writing the bills themselves). The legislative process needs to be cleaned up, filibuster to go as well as other parliamentary abuses. Money out of politics is obvious. I recommend at Voter's Bill of Rights (11 or more items) and until we get it, we Boycott Elections. This includes tossing Electoral College. Need to tax system and regulation of Banks, Wall St., etc. Lastly, we need jobs legislation along with re-training and vocational training. If we could ever really fix the Education system at the K-12 level, that would be wonderful, but it essentially looks impossible for the most part as most people do not understand the basic fundamental problems (pretty hopeless). That said, this is mostly pie-in-the-sky unless the economic system collapses and then there is window for change (don't hold your breath).
We can start by sending an immediate message to every government official in office right now. Organize and elect honest independents that possess common sense and a heart. There are still people out there that possess both of these attributes as witnessed by the many that do give back to society. In one election we could put the fear in the career politicians still in office that we have had enough and their time is next.
By the way you left out get rid of the pork in the bills that do pass. We believe we are electing grownups to office that should be thinking of what's best for out Country. Instead we get thieves that tack on outlandish money wasting programs that have nothing to do with the bill being voted on. This is a crime!
As far as education goes I think we could go to 10th grade. Some will be ready for the job market others will continue with skilled trade training. Those that choose neither path can go to college. The brightest and most motivated via scholarships. Those that have failed to show aptitude and motivation can still go but on their money. No student loans, work their way through. If they want to be there then they will put forth the effort and understand the cost of the education they are getting. The last thing college students need are student loans nearing 100k.
Education will be available for adults as well should they desire to change vocations or better themselves.
This decidedly NOT a democracy but a Constitutional Republic, by design, for one simple reason: law by consensus can just as easily legislate evil as it can good.
The National Popular Vote bill is state-based. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.
The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote. It has nothing to do with direct democracy.
With National Popular Vote, citizens would not rule directly but, instead, continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
The Constitutional Republic is a mirage. We have a Plutocracy, plain and simple. It is the difference between theory and practice. It is like a person saying, I signed a pledge to do this and that is how I behave. Right (sarcasm). You look at the person's behavior and then determine how he or she functions and draw conclusions as to the motives and beliefs. You begin with observation and through a studious and reflective examination, you begin to understand how that persons functions and who he really is. So too, social phenomenon. The uncritical nature of most people is mind-boggling. It just goes to show how thorough the brainwashing is on the one hand, and how naive people can be. The desire to believe in fantasies is pretty deep for most people. Look at religion as a classic example. The psychological need to believe in something which you deem good, I understand. Go read Wealth and Democracy by Republican Scholar, Kevin Phillips. The subtitle is A Political History of the American Rich. Or read Who Rules America by Dumhoff, or Peoples History by Howard Zinn. Many other books out there. You have to apply yourself and study and not be taken in by the Indoctrination of the Culture.
Plutocracy is an apt description but I'm not so sure about democracy - we have not seen democracy since our colonial days... in the choice of a Confederation [of colonies] we moved voluntarily from democracy to republic for the purpose of a strength-ier combined defense (some loss of direct or personal representation in the process). And I don't really know if a discussion of religion as fantasy is appropriately allegorical because personally I see this particular fantasy as born of a more archaic human form. I believe in the presence of a "Reptilian Core," the presence of evolutionary subconscious desire... But be that as it may, the Church itself, in all religions, is certainly a political power organization. And it's ability to influence is in constant flux as the pendulum of our focus shifts from the more emotional or spiritual to the more militaristic element of organizational structure; we are, after all, a communal, and therefore, hierarchical, being, that requires some form of organizational structure. It becomes a question of that which is capable of deriving power... and ultimately we must label this a "polity." You know, I don't believe, either, that indifference and denial equate to disbelief. I think that all are capable of the spiritual, and that at such times all will gravitate towards the god or gods most readily at their disposal, and... I'm not convinced that the true atheist exists anywhere in the World. Only those in search of something else... because... the dissenter in all of us serves evolutionary purpose as well.
Dost, while I don't entirely agree with the electoral system, your argument is fundamentally wrong (not to mention terribly worded).
Both systems are represented in the government. The house of representatives is used so that states with a greater population of people have more pull. While we view it as a partisan system (the majority of players are either Republican or Democrat) in reality you can also look at it by the number of representatives that are elected from each state. In that way, larger states with higher population can vote in more members than smaller states so that their "opinions" will have more say.
The senate is designed to be the exact opposite. There are only 2 senators from each state so that no state has a greater pull than any other state. For example (with our current house / senate split) the republic states have a lot of pull in the house, but are often veto'd in the senate because there everyone is equal.
Now, as I said I don't believe that the elector college works perfectly. However your notion that the system is a holdover from the wealthy trying to protect their interests is simply uneducated. It's most likely a hold over from when technology prevented it from being reasonable to actually count every single vote, therefore it was better to get a majority of states and give all the votes to that candidate. I believe you can read the Federalist Papers (someone please correct me if I'm wrong) that has the founding fathers reasoning for putting in place the electoral college if you'd like to learn more.
Look, I am pointing out massive deficiencies in the political system and don't have a lot of space to do so. So, I have to cut corners. Also, I tend to write this very quickly, thinking that people will get the "gist' of the point. There is absolutely no reason to have a Senate. I understand the reasons for it (I was a history teacher), The problem is that is is very undemocratic. Voters in small states get much more representation. Again to demonstrate the absurdity of the system, go back and look at my argument. Instead of thinking about the system objectively, what we have here is a bunch of people defending a system based on the indoctrination they got in high school. You need to do a lot more reading. Just because the Founding Fathers say and write things does not make them true. Their reasoning itself often reflects a VERY narrow self interest. They did many things to prevent Democracy being practices as they themselves admitted that they distrusted it. They even said ridiculous things like history has shown Democracy to a bad idea without referencing one example. These guys were protecting their interests. George Washington was busy surveying and trying to get his piece of the pie (land) before the Revolution. We have a plutocracy and they love the bicameral legislature as it makes it much easier to control things and influence bills. At the very least, we need a parliamentary system.
You're right that political scientists have studied the Electoral College. You're wrong when you claim the rationale doesn't hold up. Much of the defense of the Electoral College is by political scientists and ... mathematicians.
http://discovermagazine.com/2004/sep/math-against-tyranny
Dude, this is goofy. Did you actually follow the logic here? It reminds me of a famous Roman politician who, when accused of being selfish, reminded his critic that the sum total of other people's selfishness was greater than his and so his selfishness was actually less. Utilizing ILLOGIC like this would change every voting mechanism we have. It is enough to look at electoral votes themselves to proof how bullshit they are. Do you realize how it works. The number of electoral votes in each state is determined by adding the number of Reps and Senators. Hence Wyoming gets 3 (their population is roughly 600,000 or .6 million. California with a population of some 33 million gets 55 electoral votes. When you divide each population by the number of electoral votes, you get 1 electoral vote in Wyoming represents 200,000 people and in Calif. 2 vote equals 600,000. A vote in Wyoming counts more by a factor of 3. If you read my other post on the Senate, it works out just as absurd. To make the point:..The top ten populated states representing about half the population of the U.S.,, that's over 165 million, get only 20 senators. And the 10 least populated states representing less than 5% of the population, receive 20 senators. That's Fair? But you have to understand the nature of our system and the motivations of the Founding Fathers. They did not want a Democracy and probably nothing even approaching one. They wanted a Republic to be controlled by White Propertied Males who owned most of the wealth. They put in many controls to offset majorities throughout using the feeble excuse that we had to protect the minority. This was a deception of course, unconscious though it might have been. They were the minority!! My argument is that if you truly believe in Democracy, let's finally put it to the test and eliminate all the barriers and non-sensical features that inhibit it such as the filibuster. But before we get all sidetracked on this stuff, let's please focus on the issue at hand: building a real Movement that has organization, structure and leadership.
"Goofy" is a fun word. I did follow the logic, and I also follow your logic, which is why I feel vaguely qualified to make a decision on how I feel about it. More importantly, I feel vaguely comfortable telling other people what I think about it only because I understand both sides of the argument. I consider your contrasting approach to decision-making "goofy."
I will say what I consider the one and only rebuttal necessary to your argument: I don't care who the minority is, I only care about how large a minority they are, and I believe all minority populations need to be protected. I do believe it. I think it is a shame you don't. That is ultimately where we differ, whether you realize it or not.
That said, I recognize that most people, by definition, constitute the majority and therefore have no need to concern themselves with minority populations, nor do they have the incentive to put in the effort to understand issues that indirectly but profoundly affect minority populations. I wish we could do better than this, but I don't expect better than this.
The minority protection argument is again (don't take it personally) total bullshit. This from the guys who could not protect any minorities (Indians, Blacks, Women, Immigrants, Indentured Servants). The so-called majority in this country has never been the actual majority. There are so many intervening layers to protect the Wealthy and their controls that I am surprise that someone like you does not see it (you sound intelligent). For those invested in the system, those who have be socialized and indoctrinated and who want to believe in some dogma (as most do), I understand the mindset. But if you you begin to doubt, ten you begin to critically evaluate things. Some people point to the historic necessity of having a bicameral legislature which I understand. Understanding and approving are too different things. Our system is antiquated and, besides, it is massively dysfunctional. But, like I say, it is typical of human nature to want/need a system of beliefs. It alleviates anxiety at the very least. Dogma fulfills that function. Between the People and their Govt. , there is the Bicameral Legislature which is an outdated mechanism, there is the legislative process itself which is fettered by all kinds of parliamentary mechanisms utilized by the Minority to stifle action, there is the money in politics which perverts and corruption everything, there is the media, the electoral process, the political process, etc. We have a plutocracy, pure and simple. To understand a person, you do not simply look at his or her professed beliefs, you observe their behavior. It is the difference between theory and practice. Lots of people, for example, claim to be religious, but what does it mean in practice? So too, you can look at the Constitution and pretend that is how the reality of our system functions and maybe you do...then no further dialogue is necessary. There is nothing in the Constitution about lobbying or financing elections. Many Presidents warned about the Banks and the Plutocratic Powers...Once they took office and began to understand the Reality. If you are a conservative, it is fitting. Conservatives tend to believe that humans are evil and can not be trusted. Hence the need to offer protection (controls). All serious reforms in this country (Abolition, Workers' Rights, Women's Suffrage, Civil Rights, etc.) took place because a minority took on the majority, in the streets. It is amazing that it took so long (given the Preamble to the Constitution and the Constitution itself and all the noble declarations about Freedom, America, the Bill of Rights, ad nauseum) to get the Congress to do justice. I tell you what, let's actually put into practice real Democracy and see if it actually works. As far as I know, it has never been put into practice, our Founding Fathers criticism of it to the contrary.
"The electoral college was put in place to prevent real Democracy from occurring. The Founding fathers put many impediments in the way of real democracy blablablabla".....the electoral college is what allows citizens to "vote" in a federal election. Citizens would otherwise not be given a voice in who become president. "The whole system" isnt this way because it makes things easier or to hold people down....its this way because America is not a democracy. It never was. The founding fathers hated the idea.
The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived. - John Quincy Adams
A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%. - Thomas Jefferson
Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. - John Adams
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. - Benjamin Franklin
Was going to "remind" you of the difference between a democracy and a republic, but then saw your rant about states having an equal representation in the Senate. You don't need to "remember" anything, you are simply ignorant.
You really should take it upon yourself to learn (at the very least) the basic fundamentals of our government.
Dude, you need a course in logic. I was arguing that the Founding Fathers, for all their talk, did not want a true Democracy. I never said anything about a Democracy being great. But, and here is the crucial point, let's cut the hypocrisy and create the process and institutions to test the theory that about a democratic Republic. The fact of the matter is that we have a Plutocracy, rule by the rich. For all their supposed brilliance, Adams and Jefferson are simply rationalizing their defense of RIch White Men ruling. Tell me, my friend, where Democracy has existed. In point of fact, it never has been put in practice anywhere. The best examples of a more democratic/republican govt. are in Europe and a few other places which have a parliamentary system which is much more fair and reasonable. The Founding Father did not want anything approaching a Democracy. The so called Republic they created was much like the Athenian experiment: very few people could vote and there were a lot of slaves. Apparently, you don't grasp the point I was making with the Senate which is that it gives an unfair and disproportionate weight to puny populated states (you call that good!!!!??). The Constitution is a document. The real govt. is bought by the Plutocrats with bribes (campaign contributions) among may other perks. Time and space here is limited, so I can't elucidate for you further about stuff you apparently need an education on. Oh, and please change your moniker, you are an embarrassment to him. I suggest you brush up on your American history and political understanding, cause you do not know shit, typical American ignoramus and shoddy thinker. I suggest we get some of your own thoughts instead of culling from Wikepedia, moron..
Cant tell you where democracy has existed, never claimed to be able to. Nor do I care.
I didn't misunderstand your point about the Senate (your not hard to keep up with, kid), it was simply a stupid thing to say. Giving "unfair and disproportionate weight to (small) states" is the point of the Senate. State population is a factor in the HoR, the Senate is given equal representation to keep power and influence in balance (and, yes, I call this good). The justification for one house to have equal representation and the other to have population-derived power is documented. So you are either too lazy to actually become informed about what you bitch about, or you are just hoping that if you sound like you know what you are talking about people wont question it.
You never said anything about a democracy being great? Get out of here with that Clinton "What is is" crap. You didn't type the words "democracy is great" in either of these two specific posts, but when you say things that are "unfair, non-sensical, and absurd" are also undemocratic and even have "spread real Democracy" in your profile you are saying that. Dont give me that "well I didn't say those specific words in this specific instance so thats not what I believe" BS. What were you saying about hypocrisy?
"Adams and Jefferson are simply rationalizing crapcrpacrpafcprcrpacrpacpr". Really? Guys talk often? Poker on Tuesday nights, maybe? Must be close for them to divulge the hidden truth behind their actions.
Im sure your smoke and mirrors tactics work great with kids or other people willing to submit their will, but your gunna need to step it up here. Maybe someone can elucidate on for to you for about actually checking your information before you go on the assault with nothing more than a pathetic arsenal of disinformation. At the very least get decent a grasp on grammar and dont use words you dont understand.
Dude.
See if you can follow this (take your time):
You quote your Founding Fathers dissing Democracy and think it imp. enough to print actual quotes from them but admit you have no fucking idea where democracy ever existed (and you don't give a shit, either). WTF?
"To give unfair and disproportionate" representation to the Senate is the point. Really? "unfair".....?? Wow, now that is an interesting take.
But you still don't get it. We want a better, smoother functioning govt.because it is dysfunctional and corrupt. Apparently, you agree with neither of those apt judgments so your Pavlovian response is to repeat the standard defense of the system that you remember from junior high (right?).
The Senate is a throwback to another age. I get that you don't like Democracy, it figures. You much prefer a rigged Republican system with a bicameral legislature which means that the chances of special interests (banks, insurance and oil companies, etc.) influencing the content of bills are all but assured. No doubt you are a self-satisfied agent for the status quo. We get that. You love the way things are.
Yes, let's force the powers that be to make the process more democratic (even if you are in opposition to it along with your Republican cohorts). Apparently, you do not believe in one man (or woman), one vote. You think the ten least populated states with a population reflecting 3% of the population should have the same number of senators as the ten most populated representing 50% of the population because (I can hear the whinny voice crying now), 'the founding fathers determined that is was best that way." And of course, we can't be criticizing anything the Founding fathers did because they are your heroes (are you crying yet?).
The best solution> Eliminate the Senate altogether. When Obama was elected, the Dems took control of both the House and the Senate but the Republicans began to use the threat of a filibuster to block any and all legislation. I know. I know. You love that too. You probably would like to see slavery and women back in the kitchen, also. Not gonna happen, bub.
History normally moves forward although sometimes we take a few steps back. We are trying to improve the system. You are trying to keep it as it is because you are a smug, self-righteous, don't give a shit, asshole. And listen, while we're at it, Dickhead, you probably don't even know what the 17th Amendment is, right? Shit, am I gonna be your tutor the whole year? You got to start paying me. I am still waiting for an original thought. You might want to consider taking some speed to help your brain churn faster. This is getting pathetic. Next thing you know, you will be defending Wall Street. I can hardly wait for that argument.
Do you have any idea the real reason the electoral college was put into place?
It was to ensure that there was equal representation and that the condensed cities don't overwhelm the unpopulated rural, farm areas that dominated the American terrain.
I'm not saying that it is or is not the correct concept in today's America -- but majority rules can really muck things up as well.
Pure, direct election - as you propose - would pretty much give every concern to New York, Houston, Los Angeles and the other major cities -- while ignoring the rest of the US populous. That could be a real issue.
None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state. The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states.
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote.
If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election. In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.
There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.
The National Popular Vote bill would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.
I simply don't buy it.
You're looking at the city centers rather than the city's true population which usually extends about 30 miles in diameter.
Further, I don't like the electoral college, but I am not sure I like the alternative either. They both have issues.
I think more than this - what is required is getting our money out of politics. Corporations and unions should not be driving the politicians in this country. They have sold us out - and it won't matter how they are elected.
Until we level the playing field - no representation will continue to exist.
love how you just "don't buy it." Ignorance is not an excuse!
If you "don't buy it," go look at data yourself and let's have a discussion about facts. This is not a discussion that you can dismiss data just because you want to continue to stick your head in the sand - you sound like Congress!
We are both ignorant, Marie.
We haven't seen the effects of a direct democratic election. We don't know how much more fair or unfair the resulting political system would be. You only have a theory of how the many variables will play out - but it's just that.
We don't know how the political process will ultimately be altered. How the representation and state acknowledgement will be altered.
What we have now is a broken system. I'm just not sure that direct democratic election is the right answer either. Our founding fathers didn't think so and I am comfortable siding with their thoughts on that.
Again, what you're proposing may be a better system. It may end up being worse. We just don't know.
What we DO know is that it doesn't matter who is being elected so long as they have sold out the American populous to get elected. The auction process needs to be addressed more than how people are getting elected.
I disagree - the "auction process" is a symptom of a larger problem of the public not being engaged in what happens with their government. Part of this results from have a voting system, that people believe is not as fair as it should be. And even if you disagree with the solution yourself, most of America doesn't. Ultimately, it is a huge problem when the people have lost faith in the voting process.
This is something simple that we can fix as part of a broader initiative to re-engage the people and keep checks on our government. The solution will come from the people and in order for the people to have a solution they must be engaged!
The "auction process" is a symptom? It is the cause of the issues.
You get elected based on your funding. Your funding comes from, not the populous, but the few select corporations/people that donate.
You will never get representation - no matter how engaged you are - until politicians do not owe their allegiance to a different master.
I don't disagree that people have lost faith in the voting system - but there are more causes than the electoral college. There is also the fact that we know our politicians are lying to us and pandering to us with no intention of follow through.
And finally, speaking on behalf of the majority of the entire nation is a broad place to stand. Plan to back that assertion up?
Yes, a little poll known as Gallup: http://www.gallup.com/poll/13918/Public-Flunks-Electoral-College-System.aspx
Fair enough. Although, to be fair, I'd be surprised if 10% of the 61% could explain what the electoral college was.
To be fair - remember that was not my argument. Right now a majority of people perceive the current system of being unfair. That's a big problem!
Wrong. This is indoctrination to you in school. You are just repeating what some book or teacher told you. There is no logical connection between the electoral college and equal representation. If you evaluate it critically and objectively, instead of repeating the dogma you have imbibed, it does not hold up to scrutiny. The Founding Fathers did everything they could to put many obstacles between the govt. and real democracy. LIterally, many of the Founding Fathers totally distrusted democracy. So, we got a perverted Republic, originally dominated by a very small percentage of the population, to wit: Landed, White Males. In fact, in many of the colonies, there were even religious qualifications (Catholics, Jews, Quakers could not vote). Women, indians, Blacks, Immigrants, Indentured servants all could not vote. Wealthy people controlled much of politics: Landed gentry, merchants, bankers, etc. by the end of the 20th century, the corporations and wealthy had solid control. And still, only white males could typically vote. We need to eliminate the following to truly test Democracy: Electoral College, all money in politics, the Senate, parliamentary rules such as the filibuster and others. This idea that we have to protect the minority and that is why we have an electoral college, filibuster, etc. is bullshit. It is a false mantra drummed into those who do not think. It is part of the indoctrination most people go through. Ask yourself this question: if all this stuff was to protect minorities, than why didn't it: Women, Negroes, Japanese, Latinos, Working Class, etc. The people who are defending this stuff on this site have apparently have never studied politics or history in America. If they had, a lot of this would be obvious. Unless, of course, you are a conservative and then you never question much.
It sounds like you're advocating a complete rewrite of the Constitution because it's old and reflects the now irrelevant conditions of the time. While I see some of your points, I doubt a broad swath of the public will support this. I personally don't support it largely because I fear for what will happen.
We Americans are NOT very good at reasoning, and we are easily swayed. We hold firmly onto opinions based on "facts" we get from Twitter and Facebook without even CHECKING to see if these "facts" are true. We have little stomach for ANY idea that can't be expressed in under 100 characters, and we think a "truth" is defined by how many uninformed people agree. I call these "social facts" and they are differentiated from "old fashioned" fact by their lack of any substantiating evidence OTHER than "lot's of people agree."
Much of the language I see in browsing this forum is unsubstantiated "social fact." Look at the number of links people provide as "references" which simply point to OTHER people stating an agreeing opinion rather than hard census or financial figures that support their argument. Look, for example, at how many people are FIRM in their opinion that the Federal Reserve is "private" and advocate a return to the gold standard seemingly unaware that MANY "bubbles" occurred under THAT system as well.
We the People are not QUALIFIED to rewrite the Constitution. Given how the Internet has changed our society and the definitions of "truth" and "fact," I'm not sure the Western World will EVER create another well reasoned political document from scratch. Reasoning just isn't what we do anymore.
I DO think we can REFINE the Constitution one point at a time, just as we have in the past to free the slaves, give women the right to vote, etc. I think a REALLY good place to start is getting ALL money out of the political system. EVERYONE knows that money is corrupting our system, and I think a VERY broad swath of Americans could be convinced it's time to get SERIOUS about fixing that problem.
Yes, they were afraid of direct democracy - as they should be.
But the reason for the Electoral College is just as I stated.
Okay, but try again because it is currently incoherent. I take it you were not an English major but it needs editing for clarification.
No, I wasn't an English major.
I don't believe being an English major was required to understand the gist of my statement. You're simply poking at something because you have no ability to refute the statement with anything more than opinion.
Your homework assignment: Take what you wrote to three persons who are more educated than yourself if see if they can understand it and, can explain it back to you. When is the last time you wrote something coherent on any topic. Try to write a 500 word essay that makes sense. Don't think you can do it. Report back here when you can. Further responses from me will be billed at rate of $35 per hours (see, I am an entrepreneur).
I find it humorous that I found multiple errors in your grammar on a subject wherein you are insulting mine rather than actually debating the topic.
Anyhow, finding three people with more education is a bit difficult. I would definitely say I'm over-educated with 2 undergrad, 2 graduate and a PhD. But, who is counting?
So, shall we continue this little, foolish dance for a while longer or can we get back to the topic you seem incapable of defending?
Gawd, shows how bad education can be. You must be MBA or somesuch nonsense. Useless arguing with someone who can not reason. But check out another post about electoral college and how bad it is. Since you have a problems following arguments, you are free to seek help elsewhere. Look above at posts. As I said, I have to charge you for further tutoring, my time being precious. You obviously have no background in political science of if you do, your degrees must come from online universities.
It's unfortunate that you've resorted to little more than childish antics rather than fruitful discussions.
I admit to being out of my depth on the electoral college - and have stated that in other posts. I am also afraid of direct democratic elections - and have stated that in other posts.
But resorting to blind insults does nothing to help edify me to your points. The reason for an intellectual debate is to get to a crossroads where either there can be no more inroads to understanding (and we all become blatantly willfull) or further an understanding and make progress.
I'm sorry you felt that the prior result was more logical.
Finally, $35/hr? Really, you sell yourself short, sir.
Here's the thing. I'm not into taking time on this topic when someone does not even understand the basics of my criticism. I lose patience. There are so many things wrong with the political system, that it is really obvious to me we need pretty serious reform. If you can't or don't see it, whatever. I am far more interested in working for change with those people who do. You have to have thought and reflected about this stuff first, otherwise you have kneejerk reactions to criticism which is pretty typical for a lot of people, psychologically speaking. Criticism of a dogma which a person holds dear usually results in an immediate defense of the dogma without any critical thinking. So, you have to come into the dialogue with some background or be able to not get defensive. I apologize for any abuse but thought you were dishing it out pretty heavily yourself. I basically am a radical and have been one for forty plus years but I am well-read and, believe it or not, typically able to hold my own in any conversation on this and other matters. Most people respect my knowledge and experience but you really don't know me as this stuff here is pretty anonymous. I am unemployed and can't find work, and at 60, it is not a pretty place to be.
the problem is that the political parties in power are too familiar with this system and base their election strategies on it. Our poltical parties have too much money invested in the current system. They use it to stay in power and to keep 3rd parties and independents out. and for these reasons as well, we need to demand that it be abolished.
Agreed. This is why parliamentary systems are preferable. There is a chance for an outside opening. In the 1990s, Perot with his Reform Party won 19% of popular vote. Most, I believe, since Progressive Party with Teddy Roosevelt back in 1912 or 1916. If we could establish some basic core principles with wide appeal and find some dynamic spokesperson, develop a good organization, etc. we could field candidates at the very least. Of course, as we both recognize the system is so rigged against 3rd Parties, that this is a huge mountain to climb. I advocate forming another Progressive Party or the New Progressive Party based on progressive reforms but keeping it simple and not alienating Independents and moderate Dems but adopting radical positions esp. on foreign policy. Otherwise, we end up losing an important base. We can say bring the troops home from Iraq and Afghanistan but not get all involved in making declarations on all sorts of other matters. It would be nice if we progressive could actually work together instead of getting into constant intellectual and academic debates. The idea of a Progressive Party based on several Reforms would be great. See wikipedia for Progressive Party details.
Yeah, but the said truth is that no one is going to stand up for this for two reasons
1-It actually makes sense. 2-It makes elections harder on the candidates - they'd have to compete everywhere.
I'm for it, but I don't see people being smart enough to embrace it.
Hey, but if you and I plus a few million other support it, then it will grow, and it will happen!
There are a lot of myths and ignorance about this issue. In point of fact, the research shows that Presidential candidates do not visit most states. They stick to those which are swing states and visit the most populated one. It is rare for the candidates to visit any of the least populated states.
I'm with you!
I wish you were. I wish you were.
Seriously, I think Barbie is
If you had any intelligence, you'd know that the Founding fathers set up a Republic instead of a Democracy. Democracies allow a substantial voting block full of simple-minded f%cks like yourself to be just as influential as a block full of rational people.
The National Popular Vote bill is state-based. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.
The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote. It has nothing to do with direct democracy.
With National Popular Vote, citizens would not rule directly but, instead, continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
Your second sentence makes absolutely no sense. Go back to the drawing board and clarify your thought. The Republic existed in name only. The wealthy, the Plutocrats have normally exerted control over the govt. most of our history. Suggest you actually study American history and politics first instead of repeating the dogma you learned in high school. You are probably so ignorant that you did not even know that Senators were not elected by the people for most of our history (yeah, dumbshit, it's actually true. How is that for your fucking Republic, retard). What a fucking dumbshit motherfucking moron. Look, I am going to have to start charging you for this stuff. When is the last time you read a book?
If you don't understand the second sentence, then I maintain you (or at least your intelligence or lack thereof) are why democracies are problematic.
P.S. Capitalism is sexy.
The true sign of an ignoramus and a Republican: when something doesn't make sense, defend it and the morons will love you. (See Reagan, Bush, Palin, Beck, Hannity, etc.). There may be a govt. program to help you get brain transplant but, hey, you would have to take govt. aid, too bad.
Which you have obviously already done, so no thanks. I want to thank you, though, for you've supported an incredible accomplishment. The Democrats managed to single handedly turn Detroit, one of the wealthiest cities in the world into hell. I'm amazed at how fast it took. After the election of Cavanagh (D) in 1961, Democrats had full control of the city. Amazing what a bunch of socialists can do to a place in 50 years.
And amazing what financial capitalists can do in thirty. Ding!
Why elect representatives at all? The technological means exists today. We can all vote directly on bills, and more ideas and bills can be put forth directly by The People. There would probably need to be a bunch of lawyers explaining to people what they are doing, but it seems like it could work.
MAYBE citizens would pay more attention to what is happening to their country. But, man oh man, what a mess this would cause. Sorry, don't think this would work. But, wouldn't it be nice if our representatives and senators would listen to the people instead of the money?
It would cause a mess, but it seems like the mess would be good. It would certainly get everyone involved and there would probably be some problems at first. I think it could be done in about 10 years if we introduce classes in schools that cover all of the various political points of view so that kids learn to understand the broad political spectrum and how to think for themselves and understand decisions and ramifications. I am not saying that this society is ready for this now, but I think it is ready to begin preparing for this.
Take a good hard look around you. Do you really believe everyone to your left and to your right has the ability to govern responsibly? Do you believe that each of us truly has the understanding of the effects our decisions would have that we should institute a system like this? There are some that have the ability to govern and make these type of decisions. We simply need to insure they are the ones in office and not the current group of corrupt career politicians.
Agreed, and it doesn't even have to be about responsibility or ability. Who has the time??? We need representatives because governing is serious business and we need people looking at it and thinking about it full time.
No system is perfect, but there is no reason the votes should be systematically made to be inequal from state to state. There is just no point! I'm for having a popular vote!
Perhaps this could be an issue to unite OWS. Seems to excite people more than public campaign financing or Glass-Steagal. What we really need to get all of these ideas off the ground is a constitutional convention: http://callaconvention.org/
That's pointless given it doesn't require any constitutional change....I just read up on this on Wikipedia. Apparently, 9 states have already passed. Just need a few more
Wow, really? Link?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Well, hell...
To have a legitimate Constitutional Convention is almost impossible given the incredible hurdles you have to go through. You would need to have massive support and it would be a great first step to hire a polling firm to find out what % of people or voters support the occupywallst. movement. The real problem is that the group is such an admixture of so many divergent thoughts that it would probably be hard to find even 50% of country supporting us. I mean, what does this movement stand for. Do you know?
Well, and it's just a thought, but if it stood for a constitutional convention and a real national debate on all of these issues that are dividing us..
The link above is a site put together by a liberal professor/author and a Tea Party Patriot guy. The point is that we don't need consensus on the issues before calling the convention - that would be the beginning of the process. I agree it's a much longer-term goal, anyway...
I think our system of government could use some change - but nothing requiring a constitutional convention. I definitely would like to see this legislation pass in enough states to allow for a popular vote.
I think ultimately, its not our government that needs massive change, its our elected officials and the way they perceive their position. So long as they put corporate interests, political interests before the people's interests, the government will not work for the people.
It is a starting point but see Article V of the Constitution, it is very challenging and I don't think it has ever happened. The Founding Fathers absolutely distrusted the Majority and did everything they could to forestall anything close to democracy. Most people do not know and were, in fact, never taught that our Senators were chosen by State legislators most of our history, up until 1912 and only done so when the govt. became afraid that there would be a Constitutional Convention convened which might threaten the then current political system. This was but another way the Plutocracy controlled things in this country. There were and are many others. Most Americans really know very little of their history. Early on, some states did not even let the popular vote decide who would get the electors and Quakers, Catholics and Jews were barred from voting. The Powers that mean only have allowed most of the people to vote in this country when they could be insured that they were indoctrinated enough to be good patriots. For most of our history of course, Women, Negroes, Indians, Immigrants, and others could not vote. Indentured servants could not vote for decades after so called Independence. In many cases, workers had their ballots stamped by their bosses to make sure they voted for the right candidate. A woman on this site (one of the so called 1%) admitted that her husband who has a very good job on Wall Street, is told by his bosses who to vote for and they deduct money from his paycheck to donate to that candidate!!!!!! And this is in contemporary America. The Wealthy make it difficult to vote and especially for minorities. This is why I call for a Boycott of Elections and say we should demand a Voters' Bill of Rights which I have described elsewhere. It consist of 11 major points.
Nicely put!
The United States is a Republic. A representative government. England is a true Democracy. We have more checks and balances. We elect official to represent the wishes of the majority. Each step of the process is defined.
Actually it was put in place to prevent Virginia from dominating.
btw . . .
A survey of 800 Michigan voters conducted on December 2-3, 2008 showed 73% overall support for a national popular vote for President.
Support was 73% among independents, 78% among Democrats, and 68% among Republicans.
By age, support was 77% among 18-29 year olds, 67% among 30-45 year olds, 74% among 46-65 year olds, and 75% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 86% among women and 59% among men.
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#PA_2008DEC
In the current system, it could only take the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote.
If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election. In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.
There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.
The National Popular Vote bill would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.
Dude....I don't get this. That's always the case. For example, you can just win a few states now and still win the election. No matter what, as long as you win a majority of (electoral votes) you win the election right now. All this is saying is that you have to win a majority of people. This makes more sense.
Why should a vote in California count more than a vote in Michigan?!
President Obama was declared President before Oregon votes were tallied completely. That means, I had no say in the election. So the electoral college is broke - plain and simple. BTW, it worked out for me since I voted for him.
What I don't like is that anytime I want to vote for a Dem, my vote doesn't count in Texas. You are right that we are in a democratic republic, but we should also note that our country can evolve. For heaven's sake, it has been over 200 years, a lot has already change. With news, media, etc, we can conduct a vote of the populus without any more problem than we run into in conducting votes of the states.
Maybe if people felt their votes would be counted they would get off their butts and vote on Election Day!
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.
Of course, the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely act in concert on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections , the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.
Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
Texas (62% Republican),
New York (59% Democratic),
Georgia (58% Republican),
North Carolina (56% Republican),
Illinois (55% Democratic),
California (55% Democratic), and
New Jersey (53% Democratic).
In addition, the margins generated by the nation's largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
Texas -- 1,691,267 Republican
New York -- 1,192,436 Democratic
Georgia -- 544,634 Republican
North Carolina -- 426,778 Republican
Illinois -- 513,342 Democratic
California -- 1,023,560 Democratic
New Jersey -- 211,826 Democratic
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 votes for Bush in 2004.
Definitely not the place for this--BUT if we are going to elect a leader or two, then the republic (not the democracy) in which we live--with an electoral system (imperfect though it may be), allows EVERY state, no matter how big or small, to have a voice. If we had a popular vote, then the cities of LA, NY, Chicago, and Houston would be electing our leaders. Hmmmm.
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to over 2/3rds of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only the current handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters ignored.
Voter turnout in the "battleground" states has been 67%, while turnout in the "spectator" states was 61%.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.
National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state and district (in ME and NE). Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate. With National Popular Vote, elections wouldn't be about winning states or districts (in ME and NE). No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for and directly assist the candidate for whom it was cast. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states and less than 60 districts. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.
12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes) are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections Despite the fact that these 12 lowest population states together possess 40 electoral votes, because they are not closely divided battleground states, none of these 12 states get visits, advertising or polling or policy considerations by presidential candidates.
These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 lowest population states as important as an Ohio voter.
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls. Support in Small States (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine -- 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Oklahoma – 81%, Rhode Island -- 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah - 70%, Vermont -- 75%, and West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.
In the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by nine state legislative chambers, including one house in, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote.
If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election. In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.
There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.
The National Popular Vote bill would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.
I disagree - all this means is that every vote is equal. Nothing more.
Equal, in this situation, is not really fair. Not really something to disagree with, but I am happy to hear of a better way to represent the entire country without imposing the views and needs of 3-4 major cities on regions and states with vastly differing needs and views. If three of the countries largest cities happened to vote for one party, then all of the other voters, regardless of their views, would be outvoted by the majority living in metropolitan areas.
The same is true with states - where only a few states matter. For example, a Democratic vote in Texas doesn't really matter. The same is true for a Republican vote in California.
Now, the election pretty much comes down to a few swing states - Florida, Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania.
Yes. Not ideal, but since the swing has led to results that reflect a nearly 50/50 result in a virtually 2-party nation, it might be well worth advocating improved and equal ballot access laws across all states so that the 30-40 candidates for president, representing almost as many different parties, might get half a chance to be heard and seen. I can guess that this bugs you a bit too.
I feel the best system would have all votes be equal. In a two-way race, if a President won an election without a majority of people behind him/her, I don't think that person should be President.
Do you?
Nice! You would think this is a common sense issue and that every one would be on board - but apparently our elected officials are too worried about getting elected rather than thinking about what's best for the people!
To see graphically why the electoral college is so terrible: http://doesmyvotematter.com
Too many trolls!
I respectfully disagree. America is a "union of states" and respecting that fact is part and parcel of this great nation. States are free to weigh their own votes whatever way they want, including breaking up their voting bloc, but I have no interest in an up-to-down removal of the system as it is.
Just signed!!
Don't forget to sign the petition: http://uaparty.org/take-action/action-center/national-voting-reform/
Meh, we need direct voting on proposals, laws, wars, not candidates. Candidates can be bought.
How about we throw out the senate while we are at it?! Its preposterous that small populations states like Iowa and Nebraska get the same say so in the Senate as my state of California which has 10x the populations of these conservative farmer states.
Excellent post but the Troglodytes don't get it.
UnitedAmericaParty,
Earlier this year, I wrote what was basically a thesis paper on this issue. The problems I've found with this:
It needlessly increases the voting power of cities, and this can cause strange side effects from the governing perspective. Americans don't want a President who is only concerned with metropolitan issues.
In the event of a recount, you're talking insanity. There will always be recounts, but the current system limits the madness and the added expenses to one state. We aren't ready for a nation-wide recount. Poll watchers have lives too, they can't be bothered to spend 18 - 45 days counting ballots.
When I started my paper, I originally supported your position but I changed and I was rather horrified by the implications of what national popular vote would mean.
Terrible idea.
You are essentially reducing the needs of the people in less populous areas/states to be all but ignored.
The presidential campaign will focus on 7-8 major cities and the rest of the country can be damned.
This has the opposite effect of increasing diversity -- it homogenizes the vote to the standings of these major metropolis areas.
With National Popular Vote, big cities would not get all of candidates’ attention, much less control the outcome. The population of the top five cities (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia) is only 6% of the population of the United States and the population of the top 50 cities (going as obscurely far down as Arlington, TX) is only 19% of the population of the United States. Suburbs and exurbs often vote Republican.
Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote.
If big cities controlled the outcome of elections, the governors and U.S. Senators would be Democratic in virtually every state with a significant city.
A nationwide presidential campaign, with every vote equal, would be run the way presidential candidates campaign to win the electoral votes of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, under the state-by-state winner-take-all methods. The big cities in those battleground states do not receive all the attention, much less control the outcome. Cleveland and Miami do not receive all the attention or control the outcome in Ohio and Florida.
The itineraries of presidential candidates in battleground states (and their allocation of other campaign resources in battleground states) reflect the political reality that every gubernatorial or senatorial candidate knows. When and where every vote is equal, a campaign must be run everywhere.
Even in California state-wide elections, candidates for governor or U.S. Senate don't campaign just in Los Angeles and San Francisco, and those places don't control the outcome (otherwise California wouldn't have recently had Republican governors Reagan, Dukemejian, Wilson, and Schwarzenegger). A vote in rural Alpine county is just an important as a vote in Los Angeles. If Los Angeles cannot control statewide elections in California, it can hardly control a nationwide election. In fact, Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland together cannot control a statewide election in California.
Similarly, Republicans dominate Texas politics without carrying big cities such as Dallas and Houston.
There are numerous other examples of Republicans who won races for governor and U.S. Senator in other states that have big cities (e.g., New York, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts) without ever carrying the big cities of their respective states.
The National Popular Vote bill would not change the need for candidates to build a winning coalition across demographics. Any candidate who yielded, for example, the 16% of Americans who live in rural areas in favor of a “big city” approach would not likely win the national popular vote. Candidates would still have to appeal to a broad range of demographics, and perhaps even more so, because the election wouldn’t be capable of coming down to just one demographic, such as voters in Ohio.
12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes) are almost invariably non-competitive, and ignored, in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections Despite the fact that these 12 lowest population states together possess 40 electoral votes, because they are not closely divided battleground states, none of these 12 states get visits, advertising or polling or policy considerations by presidential candidates.
These 12 states together contain 11 million people. Because of the two electoral-vote bonus that each state receives, the 12 non-competitive small states have 40 electoral votes. However, the two-vote bonus is an entirely illusory advantage to the small states. Ohio has 11 million people and has "only" 20 electoral votes. As we all know, the 11 million people in Ohio are the center of attention in presidential campaigns, while the 11 million people in the 12 non-competitive small states are utterly irrelevant. Nationwide election of the President would make each of the voters in the 12 lowest population states as important as an Ohio voter.
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls. Support in Small States (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine -- 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Oklahoma – 81%, Rhode Island -- 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah - 70%, Vermont -- 75%, and West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.
In the 13 lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill already has been approved by nine state legislative chambers, including one house in, Delaware, the District of Columbia, and Maine and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
The 11 most populous states contain 56% of the population of the United States and a candidate would win the Presidency if 100% of the voters in these 11 states voted for one candidate. However, if anyone is concerned about the this theoretical possibility, it should be pointed out that, under the current system, a candidate could win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in these same 11 states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.
Of course, the political reality is that the 11 largest states rarely act in concert on any political question. In terms of recent presidential elections , the 11 largest states include five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). The fact is that the big states are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country. For example, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry. Moreover, the notion that any candidate could win 100% of the vote in one group of states and 0% in another group of states is far-fetched. Indeed, among the 11 most populous states, the highest levels of popular support were found in the following seven non-battleground states:
Texas (62% Republican),
New York (59% Democratic),
Georgia (58% Republican),
North Carolina (56% Republican),
Illinois (55% Democratic),
California (55% Democratic), and
New Jersey (53% Democratic).
In addition, the margins generated by the nation's largest states are hardly overwhelming in relation to the 122,000,000 votes cast nationally. Among the 11 most populous states, the highest margins were the following seven non-battleground states:
Texas -- 1,691,267 Republican
New York -- 1,192,436 Democratic
Georgia -- 544,634 Republican
North Carolina -- 426,778 Republican
Illinois -- 513,342 Democratic
California -- 1,023,560 Democratic
New Jersey -- 211,826 Democratic
To put these numbers in perspective, Oklahoma (7 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 455,000 votes for Bush in 2004 -- larger than the margin generated by the 9th and 10th largest states, namely New Jersey and North Carolina (each with 15 electoral votes). Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 votes for Bush in 2004.
I simply don't agree and believe you are simplifying the argument.
I dont think so. And if you are thinking you want to be pure with respect to the Constitution, that means you should consider going back to the system where the candidate that receives the second most votes should be elected to the Vice President position.
Your argument to keep things the way they are "just because" is not valid. Otherwise, we would not have elections at all and state legislatures would decide the President. This agreement/pact is perfectly in line with the Constitution, requires no amendments, and is a state-based decision to change how electors are distributed in each state.
Even now, many states are debating changing from an all-or-nothing to a system of proportionately dividing electors. The problem is that if this is only done in a few states, it could absolutely prevent a majority candidate from winning and make the popular vote disparity even larger.
THIS IS A PROBLEM THATS HAPPENING NOW - legislatures in Pennsylvania, Michigan, and elsewhere are considering proportionately diving electors to give an advantage to a particular Presidential candidate.
Sticking your head in the sand is not the solution gtyper!
To be honest, I wouldn't be opposed to having the second most votes being the vice president. So long as we can remove this "two party system" that dominates our politics.
I think it gives the proper representation of the nation and a counterweight to the elected officials.
Again, I'm not opposed to reform - I'm just not sure it's the right solution. I'm not sure that Montana would get a fair shake.
And you think Montana gets a fairshake now with 3 electoral votes - I don't recall Montana being a battlesground state in 2008, 2004, 2000, 1996....or ever!
The Electoral college is absolute bullshit. It should be changed to the popular vote. If a majority overwhelms a minority then thats exactly whats supposed to happen in a democracy - majority wins!.
The Electoral college is absolute bullshit. It should be changed to the popular vote. If a majority overwhelms a minority then thats exactly whats supposed to happen in a democracy - majority wins!.
that worked well in florida in 2001
People in places like Wyoming disagree with you.
A survey of 1,039 Wyoming voters conducted on January 4–5, 2011 showed 69% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.
Voters were asked "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?"
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 66% among Republicans, 77% among Democrats, and 72% among others. By gender, support was 76% among women and 62% among men. By age, support was 70% among 18-29 year olds, 68% among 30-45 year olds, 70% among 46-65 year olds, and 70% for those older than 65.
http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polls.php#WY_2011JAN
Very interesting citation, thank you.
Don't forget to sign the petition: http://uaparty.org/take-action/action-center/national-voting-reform/
Thats fine - lets just take a vote on that - majority wins.
Mob rule! Get your pitchforks! The bankers are our misfortune.
not necessarily - who said every issue needs to be 51%? Flexibility is the answer. 20%, 40% 50%, 70%, etc. all depends on the weight of the issue, how it's catagorized, how many people it affects, etc. Base it on the Rule of Law as a start, improve from there. br, Michael
Signed!! Ya, pay attention folks, were talking about presidential elections here, not congress. So Rico, chill my friend. Bear in mind our founding fathers were just like us. People who wanted a better country to live in. They decided to build it, now let us decide to make it better!
Sure, I'll support that.... just as soon as you show me you UNDERSTAND why we HAVE an Electoral College AND, while we're on the subject of fairness, why EVERY STATE, no matter how SMALL their population, gets TWO Senators.
Convince me you UNDERSTAND why the system was set up this way, and I'm willing to discuss CHANGING it. Until then, I will assume you don't really UNDERSTAND what you're proposing to change, and supporting you would be very RISKY. Folks REALLY shouldn't meddle in things they don't understand.
P.S. I assume you HAVE read Plato's Republic, so you DO understand the issues he identified in even the EARLIEST and most SIMPLE Democracy, RIGHT ? If not this, then I ASSUME you've done a LOT of study into the evolution and history of OTHER Democracies, RIGHT ? Surely you wouldn't propose to meddle in the design of Government WITHOUT having the same level of understanding as that of our Founding Fathers and the Period of Enlightenment from which they emerged !
Now political clout comes from being a battleground state.
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive,in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine -- 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah - 70%, Vermont -- 75%, West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.
In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers -- including one house in DC, Delaware, Maine, and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
The Electoral College is the set of electors who vote for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state.
The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.
The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution, and enacting National Popular Vote would not need an amendment. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, are an example of state laws eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution, Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.
Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
I asked you to elaborate on WHY our Founding Fathers decided to incorporate the Electoral College into the Constitution. In your response, you suggest it was because they were "unable to agree on any particular method." WHY do you think they couldn't agree ? Clearly there were SOME arguing in FAVOR of the Electoral College; WHY do you think that is ? I gave you a big hint by mentioning that we ALSO give each state two Senators REGARDLESS of the state's population... it's hardly "Democratic" to give a tiny state like Rhode Island the same power in the Senate as California !
A voice of clarity in a crowded forum. Nicely done!
but that's the beauty of an Open Source Political Framework, a form of Open Source direct democracy. Those with strong knowledge of issues will float to the top as true respected experts in the field (all 100% open on the internet) and 'armchair coaches' will be relegated to the lower echelons. But this could change at any point in time if, say it becomes obvious that the respected expert started to pick a side, or the 'armchair coach' got serious and genuinely stared contributing.
If we had an Open Source Political Framework, we wouldn't need Term Limits as they would be replaced by continual ratings by peers - if people see they are doing good, why make them leave? If they got in one way but than changes positions, why have them stay to the end of their term?? br, Michael
I only asked that the poster DEMONSTRATE that he UNDERSTANDS why the Founding Fathers incorporated the Electoral College into the Constitution so I could feel comfortable he was sufficiently KNOWLEDGEABLE to mess with it. I gave him a BIG hint by also pointing out that Rhode Island has as much power in the Senate as California... hardly "democratic" given their relative populations. Some OTHER folks in this thread have answered the question I posed, but the original poster has not.
The National Popular Vote bill is state-based. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.
The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote. It has nothing to do with direct democracy.
With National Popular Vote, citizens would not rule directly but, instead, continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
Should every vote be equal? I'm as scared as the elites running the system as everybody else, but doesn't it make sense that the Einstein's vote should count more than the uninformed idiot who just votes for a candidate because they look nice on TV? We should start listing some pros and cons to having everybody's vote count the same. Obviously it would be very difficult to decide who's vote counts more. Based on education, intelligence, service done to society (how would you measure these things)? On the other hand, we could have idiots who haven't can't formulate a rational argument vote with equal weight as our best and brightest. Just a thought.
You will never get rid of the electoral college.
You'd need 3/4th votes to pass an amendment.
I think it should be clear why some states would not like that very much.
As I mentioned in another post, it doesn't require any constitutional change as this doesn't abolish the Electoral College but rather ask that states dedicate their electors to the candidate that receives the most votes in the country as-a-whole rather than their own states.. Apparently, 9 states have already passed. Just need a few more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
I replied to a Similar Call for Action With this:
Watch the HBO Documentary. . "The Hacking of Democracy"
It Will have you Clamoring for the 'Popular Vote'! ( with receipts)
A Republic, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT.
Perhaps not. 100 years of public schooling have taken their toll, and this is the first test balloon.
The National Popular Vote bill is state-based. It preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College.
The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote. It has nothing to do with direct democracy.
With National Popular Vote, citizens would not rule directly but, instead, continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes, to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
Great post. But in order for this to get through, we will need to stop corporation influence on our politicians.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/our-1st-demand-needs-to-be/
Why not forgo all this primary season and just simply have a primary for everyone who wants to run for president. Cut it down to the top two and those will be the only candidates? Something my father put into my head as a youth. Wonder how that would work?
Disagree.
How the electoral college interacts with a democracy doesn't matter. If America were a democracy then it would, but we are a republic. I care how well the electoral college interacts with a democracy about as much as I care how it interacts with communism.
Like Electoral College because it acts as a check against populist demouage getting into office. Why should California have all the power to elect a president states like Wyoming, Iowa, Indiana would have no voice. This system worked for 200 years no need to change it.
In the current system, it could only take the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency by winning a mere 51% of the vote in just these 11 biggest states -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.
With National Popular Vote, big states that are just about as closely divided as the rest of the country, would not get all of the candidates' attention. In recent presidential elections, the 11 largest states have been split -- five "red states (Texas, Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, and Georgia) and six "blue" states (California, New York, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and New Jersey). Among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).
Now with state-by-state winner-take-all laws, presidential elections ignore 12 of the 13 lowest population states (3-4 electoral votes), that are almost invariably non-competitive,in presidential elections. Six regularly vote Republican (Alaska, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota), and six regularly vote Democratic (Rhode Island, Delaware, Hawaii, Vermont, Maine, and DC) in presidential elections.
Support for a national popular vote is strong in every smallest state surveyed in recent polls among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group. Support in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Idaho – 77%, Maine -- 77%, Montana – 72%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, South Dakota – 71%, Utah - 70%, Vermont -- 75%, West Virginia – 81%, and Wyoming – 69%.
In the lowest population states, the National Popular Vote bill has passed in nine state legislative chambers -- including one house in DC, Delaware, Maine, and both houses in Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont. It has been enacted by the District of Columbia, Hawaii, and Vermont.
None of the 10 most rural states (VT, ME, WV, MS, SD, AR, MT, ND, AL, and KY) is a battleground state. The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes does not enhance the influence of rural states, because the most rural states are not battleground states, and they are ignored.
&&&
A survey of 1,039 Wyoming voters conducted on January 4–5, 2011 showed 69% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.
Voters were asked "How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?"
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 66% among Republicans, 77% among Democrats, and 72% among others. By gender, support was 76% among women and 62% among men. By age, support was 70% among 18-29 year olds, 68% among 30-45 year olds, 70% among 46-65 year olds, and 70% for those older than 65.
&&&&&
A survey of 800 Iowa voters showed 75% overall support for a national popular vote for President. The question was "How do you think we should elect the President when we vote in the November general election: should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote for President was 82% among Democrats, 63% among Republicans, and 77% among others.
By age, support was 76% among 18-29 year olds, 65% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 80% for those older than 65.
By gender, support was 82% among women and 67% among men.
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to over 2/3rds of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all method (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only the current handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 14 states and their voters will matter. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. Almost 75% of the country will be ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters ignored.
Voter turnout in the "battleground" states has been 67%, while turnout in the "spectator" states was 61%.
Policies important to the citizens of ‘flyover’ states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.
Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 56 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). 537 popular votes won Florida and the White House for Bush in 2000 despite Gore's lead of 537,179 popular votes nationwide. A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
If a Democratic presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Democratic party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. If a Republican presidential candidate receives the most votes, the state's dedicated Republican party activists who have been chosen as its slate of electors become the Electoral College voting bloc. The winner of the presidential election is the candidate who collects 270 votes from Electoral College voters from among the winning party's dedicated activists.
It didn't work in 2000 (Gore v. Bush). You are trying to justify a system using non-sensical comments!
California will always matter more (it matters more now and it'll matter more if this is changed because there are a lot of people).
Give me one reason why a vote in Wyoming should matter more than a vote in California?!
JFK got Daley to rig elections in Illinois in 1960s the dead people voted in cook county. It works both ways, what about Tammy Hall democratic machine people voted 5 times over in NYC. During the 19th century you voted the way you party bosses told your or ended up dead before secret ballot came about. During Jim Crow South if you voted Republican you were chased by the KKK. It works both ways, both sides got wackos and cranks that offer fools gold.
Please think harder on this one. Remember 2000? The election came down to the popular votes being recounted overandover in a few Florida counties. Now, what happens when every vote in Chicago counts nationally? Somebody challenges all the votes from dead people (it happens) and we're recounting there for months. What happens when every vote counts in NYC? There are many millions of votes that can be challenged - millions - for each national election, but for the fact that in an electoral college system individually they do not change the number of electoral votes that state will cast for President, so nobody bothers with them.
In 2000 Gore was looking for a few hundred votes to swing one important state his way. Imagine a candidate looking through the ballots of every major city for a hunderd thousand votes, since every vote will add to the total?
The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush's lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore's nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger). Given the miniscule number of votes that are changed by a typical statewide recount (averaging only 274 votes), no one would have requested a recount or disputed the results in 2000 if the national popular vote had controlled the outcome. Indeed, no one (except perhaps almanac writers and trivia buffs) would have cared that one of the candidates happened to have a 537-vote margin in Florida.
Recounts are far more likely in the current system of state-by-state winner-take-all methods.
The possibility of recounts should not even be a consideration in debating the merits of a national popular vote. No one has ever suggested that the possibility of a recount constitutes a valid reason why state governors or U.S. Senators, for example, should not be elected by a popular vote.
The question of recounts comes to mind in connection with presidential elections only because the current system so frequently creates artificial crises and unnecessary disputes.
A nationwide recount would not happen. We do and would vote state by state. Each state manages its own election and recount. The state-by-state winner-take-all system is not a firewall, but instead causes unnecessary fires.
Given that there is a recount only once in about 160 statewide elections, and given there is a presidential election once every four years, one would expect a recount about once in 640 years with the National Popular Vote. The actual probability of a close national election would be even less than that because recounts are less likely with larger pools of votes.
The average change in the margin of victory as a result of a statewide recount was a mere 296 votes in a 10-year study of 2,884 elections.
No recount would have been warranted in any of the nation’s 56 previous presidential elections if the outcome had been based on the nationwide count.
The common nationwide date for meeting of the Electoral College has been set by federal law as the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. With both the current system and the National Popular Vote approach, all counting, recounting, and judicial proceedings must be conducted so as to reach a "final determination" prior to the meeting of the Electoral College. In particular, the U.S. Supreme Court has made it clear that the states are expected to make their "final determination" six days before the Electoral College meets.
The League of Women Voters assures us that Americans are twice as likely to get hit by lightning as to have their vote canceled out by a fraudulently cast vote.
The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud. A very few people can change the national outcome by changing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.
National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.
Hendrik Hertzberg wrote: "To steal the closest popular-vote election in American history, you'd have to steal more than a hundred thousand votes . . .To steal the closest electoral-vote election in American history, you'd have to steal around 500 votes, all in one state. . . .
For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.
Which, I ask you, is an easier mark for vote-stealers, the status quo or N.P.V.[National Popular Vote]? Which offers thieves a better shot at success for a smaller effort?"
Well the interesting thing is that voter fraud would matter less -
Opponents of the compact have suggested that a direct national election would raise concerns about election fraud. Former Delaware Governor Pete du Pont argues that in 2000, "Mr. Gore's 540,000-vote margin amounted to 3.1 votes in each of the country's 175,000 precincts. 'Finding' three votes per precinct in urban areas is not a difficult thing...". However, National Popular Vote has argued that a direct election would reduce the likelihood of a close election and decrease the feasibility of fraud. They contend that the large nationwide pool of 122 million votes would make a close outcome much less likely than it is under the current system, in which the national winner may be determined by an extremely small vote margin in any one of the numerous statewide tallies.[19][23]
All this information is site on Wikipedia with the appropriate references
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
[Removed]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTbLslkIR2k&feature=youtu.be
I have a fear that making every vote count will only make buying votes more profitable. Once people really start to realize they can vote in their paycheck, votes go to the highest bidder! Don't vote. It's pointless anyway.
Wiki Occupy Wall Street
http://www.wikioccupywallst.org
United We Stand ! Let's Build it Together ! Yes we are Us . . .
We are encouraged that the National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed or voted for by 2,110 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill. It has passed 31 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by the District of Columbia, California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Maryland, Vermont, and Washington. These nine jurisdictions possess 132 electoral votes -- 49% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
The latest edition of Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote, is available as a free download via http://www.every-vote-equal.com/
Chapter 10 - Responses to Myths about the National Popular Vote, answers questions and concerns you or others might have.
Other possible ways to help:
Check out the options at http://www.nationalpopularvote.com under "Take Action"
Write your state legislator and Governor http://nationalpopularvote.com/write/
Sign up to get email updates - http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/getemailupdates.php
Tell a friend - http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/tellafriend.php
Put a link to National Popular Vote onto your web page. http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/downloadad.php
Add our poll to your web site http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/polladd.php
Help us get the word out in groups you are active in. Post on discussion groups.
Write letters to editors, OpEds, and/or blog.
Distribute literature at political, civic, or other meeting, convention, or conference.
Up-to-date information and materials are at http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/pages/explanation.php
Responses to myths about the National Popular Vote bill are at http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/answers.php
Frequently Asked Questions are answered via http://nationalpopularvote.com/pages/faq.php
To stay up-to-date, join us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=2208145434# and invite your friends.
Don't forget to sign the petition: http://uaparty.org/take-action/action-center/national-voting-reform/
I have no idea why people are so stupid as to fall for dumbass shit like the Electoral College. It's like falling for the idea of paying for time out of purgatory for another soul. I just don't get it. By the way, no offense to catholics. I just personally can't understand how people can blindly let themselves be so obviously fooled.
When I learned about our Electoral College 40 years ago, I stopped voting knowing my vote was useless. I have voted only once since then, for Obama, and I wonder how much that mattered. He does not have real power. Sadly, he is a puppet like so many in power.
I vote for this. We need to make every vote count.
Agreed Fuck the electoral college.
actually this is a state issue and there are already support groups fro that legislation. if you can find some of them and get them involved, it may add.
Why do we need a President? All decisions should be made at the local community level, with very few things done at a federal level
I really like your plan too, but it'll be a long road since it would require a series of constitutional changes / amendments. In the mean time please help support our petition to make elections transparent and verifiable : https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/make-elections-transparent-and-verifiable/3D9pD2Q1
Nice website. But, I am discouraged by something I saw on there. Of all the petitions, the ones with the most signatures deal with legalization of POT or related activities (letting the pot heads out of jail) and the right to shoot people (by carrying guns). That pretty much tells me our nation cares more about getting stoned and shooting people then solving real problems. We are officially screwed.
That's the best thing about this. IT REQUIRES NO CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGES. Basically, it's an agreement among the states to give their electoral votes to the candidate that wins the popular vote in all states total. So far, half the states needed to pass this into law have done saw. Check out the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact
Sign this petition too: http://uaparty.org/take-action/action-center/national-voting-reform/
We will be using it to get more states on board. We are half way there - 9 states have signed on!
Wow 9 States! That's a good start. Great website by the way.