Click here for article
What are your thoughts on this?
I personally dislike the idea because the purpose of the electoral college was to allow all states to have some parity in electing the head of the federal government. I know there are a few states that have done so also but that doesn't make it right.
edited to fix link
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Tuesday, July 27, 2010 5:20 PM
No linky.
I say Electoral College FTL...
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
nj hi and a few others are already doing this too
As much as I am a proponent of the Tenth Amendment,
THIS IS A REPUBLIC, NOT A DEMOCRACY!
On Democracy
Lord Acton, the famous Englishman who coined the aphorism that “power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely,” had this to say:
Quote:
“The one prevailing evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections.”
Like how certain senators hold seats for X amount of years.
Stick to the Constitution, let it be our guiding light in troubled time like we find our selves in now.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Quote:
Under the law, which was enacted by the House last week, all 12 of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.
So this is better? A candidate could get 75% of the vote in that state, and get none of it's deligates. Way to give every vote equal weight.
Leave it to a hard left state like MA to pull something like this.
Hard left state you say? And should a Conservative candidate get a majority of the popular votes nationally, that Conservative would win the hard left state. It may circumvent the will of the people of that state, but in favor of enforcing the will of the sum of the nation. This move - being pulled in a hard left state as you say - is therefore to the advantage of the right. As is, you can loose the popular vote and still win the electoral vote. Suppose a right wing candidate is ahead on the popular vote, but would be behind on electoral votes(because this state's votes go to the left wing canditate). After a measure like this - the right winger would win where otherwise he could lose. This move is to no advantage of the left under any likely scenario.
Although an imperfect way to accomplish this, what this does is to give more power to the popular vote. The electoral college itself should be done away with. Popular voting wasn't practical in the days of our forefathers. Today we have instant communication. There is no reason we cannot have a DIRECT VOTE. The electoral college is a sham of democracy. Real democracy(or should I say democratic republic) would involve the president being chosen by a majority of citizens, rather than electorates(aka party elites).
If every state did this, you effectively WOULD elect a president based off of the popular vote alone. I'd still rather it be direct, but this is as close as you could get without a constitutional amendment.
As for you saying "Way to give every vote equal weight" - well this idea probably does so better than you think. As is, not all votes carry equal weights. That is the very reason they have "battleground states" at all.
Lets say you are in a far left or far right state. Lets also say that you vote with that majority. 99% of the population voting one way means NOTHING more than if only 51% had voted that way in many states. In this case you have 48% of the voters in that state whose votes mean NOTHING. That is an extreme but not impossible example. Some states do split the delegates, and while that reduces the problem(aka reduces the percentage of votes that get disenfranchised), it doesn't totally fix it either.
Keep in mind that a candidate can loose the popular vote and still win the electoral - it has happened in recent history as you know. Also remember that while Obama did defeat McCain by a decent but not overwhelming amount in the popular vote, he BLEW AWAY McCain in the electoral college. Seeing as how it is the electoral college who decides who wins, you still wanna tell me that the voters all are given equal weight now?! You maybe see what could happen in 2012?
I'm glad that you want every vote to have equal weight, but you are going about it wrong. You should be WELCOMING this kinda move in every state in the US. This weakens the electoral system. If this comes to all states, candidates won't be able to pick and choose which states are important anymore. They will have to consider EVERY citizen important, and go around hearing ALL our concerns.
bk3k wrote:R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Quote:
Under the law, which was enacted by the House last week, all 12 of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.
So this is better? A candidate could get 75% of the vote in that state, and get none of it's deligates. Way to give every vote equal weight.
Leave it to a hard left state like MA to pull something like this.
Hard left state you say? And should a Conservative candidate get a majority of the popular votes nationally, that Conservative would win the hard left state. It may circumvent the will of the people of that state, but in favor of enforcing the will of the sum of the nation. This move - being pulled in a hard left state as you say - is therefore to the advantage of the right. As is, you can loose the popular vote and still win the electoral vote. Suppose a right wing candidate is ahead on the popular vote, but would be behind on electoral votes(because this state's votes go to the left wing canditate). After a measure like this - the right winger would win where otherwise he could lose. This move is to no advantage of the left under any likely scenario.
Although an imperfect way to accomplish this, what this does is to give more power to the popular vote. The electoral college itself should be done away with. Popular voting wasn't practical in the days of our forefathers. Today we have instant communication. There is no reason we cannot have a DIRECT VOTE. The electoral college is a sham of democracy. Real democracy(or should I say democratic republic) would involve the president being chosen by a majority of citizens, rather than electorates(aka party elites).
If every state did this, you effectively WOULD elect a president based off of the popular vote alone. I'd still rather it be direct, but this is as close as you could get without a constitutional amendment.
As for you saying "Way to give every vote equal weight" - well this idea probably does so better than you think. As is, not all votes carry equal weights. That is the very reason they have "battleground states" at all.
Lets say you are in a far left or far right state. Lets also say that you vote with that majority. 99% of the population voting one way means NOTHING more than if only 51% had voted that way in many states. In this case you have 48% of the voters in that state whose votes mean NOTHING. That is an extreme but not impossible example. Some states do split the delegates, and while that reduces the problem(aka reduces the percentage of votes that get disenfranchised), it doesn't totally fix it either.
Keep in mind that a candidate can loose the popular vote and still win the electoral - it has happened in recent history as you know. Also remember that while Obama did defeat McCain by a decent but not overwhelming amount in the popular vote, he BLEW AWAY McCain in the electoral college. Seeing as how it is the electoral college who decides who wins, you still wanna tell me that the voters all are given equal weight now?! You maybe see what could happen in 2012?
I'm glad that you want every vote to have equal weight, but you are going about it wrong. You should be WELCOMING this kinda move in every state in the US. This weakens the electoral system. If this comes to all states, candidates won't be able to pick and choose which states are important anymore. They will have to consider EVERY citizen important, and go around hearing ALL our concerns.
this is not a left versus right story. it is a issue concerning the articles of confederation that allowed us to create the country. this bypasses the fact that teh electoral process was designed so larger states like virginia could not have way more power in electing a president than say rhode island )circa 1700's.
Put party politics to the side and look at it from a constitutional standpoint.
In party politics, the democrats live in major cities, so yes it would skew the vote in the lefts favor, but this is not the point behind the protest, though it is probably the reason they are doing it
it does not mean an end to politicians picking states for teh reason you mention, what it means is they just have to get to the major urban centers and get the large pools of voters versus smaller states. teh electoral college is designed to smooth out the differences in state size somewhat and give all states some say in the process.
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all 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 rule (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but now used 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 a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Massachusetts (the 13th largest population state, with 12 electoral college votes) and 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states (with less than 7 electoral college votes) were not among them. Over half (57
of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
R.W.E. of the J.B.O. wrote:Do you even own a J-body? 
Does everyone on JBO?
But, I agree, could easily be Bill in disguise
fortune cookie say: better a delay than a disaster
s e wrote:The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all 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 rule (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but now used 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 a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Massachusetts (the 13th largest population state, with 12 electoral college votes) and 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states (with less than 7 electoral college votes) were not among them. Over half (57 of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in one of every 14 presidential elections.
In the past six decades, there have been six presidential elections in which a shift of a relatively small number of votes in one or two states would have elected (and, in 2000, did elect) a presidential candidate who lost the popular vote nationwide.
what you fail to consider is teh system was designed exactly this way america is not mob rule it is a representative republic, read the federalist papers please.
Mob-ruled government. They have another word for that - Democracy.
They do have governments run entirely by men who are said to know better what is best, who are accountable to no one, and do not pretend the people have any choice.
Guess it depends what you prefer.
"Democracy is said to be the worse form of government ever invented, except for every form tried before it."
I might not have nailed that quote down 100%, but you get the idea.
Good thing then that the Republic came after the democracy.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
^^^^
IDIOT.
The term Republic Eludes the great goodwrenchGT?
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Your vote counted, however it was less then the other votes,
ERGO the reason the ELECTORS (sum of Reps, and senate seats) went to the other person (not who YOU voted for)
This is how a REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC works Oh great one.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
what you miss is the representative republic does not mean that the popular vote is what matters. what matters is the sum of the voted on a state by state basis. it goes back to state rights versus federal rights. The states created the federal government, not the other way around. This means a popular vote is not the decider, it is the input from each independent state. The Constitution was written this way for a reason. People who think the constitution is a living document miss the point of the document. It is the way it is for a reason and should not be modified or subverted in this way.
True Conservative wrote:what you miss is the representative republic does not mean that the popular vote is what matters. what matters is the sum of the voted on a state by state basis.
The thing that makes it a Republic has NOTHING to do with the states vs the people voting for the president. It has everything to do with the fact that we have elected representatives to make decisions for the people to live under. If the people select the president directly - it is still a Republic. All that means is that the president is chosen the same way Congressmen and Senators are. BTW those Senators where originally chosen by the states rather than by the people - does that bother you?
But the Congressmen and Senators are elected only by the people of the state to represent only that state. You have an issue that the man elected to represent the entire nation as a whole be elected by the people of the entire nation as a whole? What about that does not make sense to you?
True Conservative wrote:it goes back to state rights versus federal rights. The states created the federal government, not the other way around.
Funny you should mention that. The Constitution was made to replace an existing form of Government in the US. It replaced the
Articles of Confederation. Our forefather did this, realizing that a system of Government - where states have too much power under a weak Federal Government - was almost unworkable and could not stand the test of time. While people look to the Constitution in order to preserve state rights, they apparently don't realize exactly what the Constitution is, or why it came into being. Its very ratification is the biggest erosion of states' rights that this nation has ever experienced.
INFIDEL - in your sig is a quote from a man steadfastly opposed the passage of the very Constitution that you always look upon with such reverence. He opposed its passage(in favor of retaining the Articles of Confederation) for the same reasons I mentioned here. He was a prolific
Anti-Federalist. Although that quote is wise, I still find it ironic that you would use it considering this fact.
Another small point to make here - people always talk about "the will of the forefathers" and such. Well as brilliant as those men where, they where still much like politicians today - they did NOT agree on everything. They in fact fought like cats and dogs all the time. The Constitution itself, is a compromise document(which in a way made it stronger). People who think they spoke with one voice simple do not understand history.
True Conservative wrote:This means a popular vote is not the decider, it is the input from each independent state.
The President is elected by the Electoral College, who derives their power from the states. The states - as with all levels of government -
derive their just powers from the consent of the governed(aka the people). This is the very foundation of how our government has always worked. The president being elected by the people directly - only cuts out the middlemen(or dare I say - cuts out 2 layers of bureaucracy).
Honestly, I cannot understand the hangup some people have with State's rights. I think their should be proper distribution of power, yes. But what really matters is not Federal Government power VS State power. What matters to me is the power retained by the people VS
ALL LEVELS of Government. Does it really matter just which level of Government deprives you of liberty? Is not your liberty deprived just as much if the state government has taken it rather than the Federal Government?
Take Chicago and their (recently struck down) gun law. People where deprived of their rights to own hand guns for self defense. But it was neither by Federal nor even State Government that they where deprived. It was by their local government. Does it really matter? All that did matter was that their liberty was deprived of them. Ironically, it was a branch of The Federal Government who came to the rescue to restore the rights of the people taken by local government. Think about that one.
It is not the state's rights that we must safeguard, but the rights of the people that we must hold sacred. We do not exist for the sake of the Government, rather the Government exists for our sake. All the State Governments are the same as the Federal Government in one thing - they ALWAYS seek more power. The fact is that the State Governments are at odds with The Federal Government because both want that same power. They always want more, never less. But never forget that this power they argue over is power derived from the people.
The cause of "state's rights" is nothing more than a straw man to distract you from the fact that all levels of Government are too powerful and growing still. So you take sides with the State over the Federal... what good does that do you?! Would you side with one thief over another? Think about it.
No, I'm not an anarchist anymore than I am a totalitarian-ist. The best answer to this question (as with most questions) is a proper balance between these extremes. I think we are currently in more danger of the latter than the former.
True Conservative wrote:The Constitution was written this way for a reason.
That reason being that in a world where communication was carried by horse, electing one figure from the votes of every person across the nation would be utterly unworkable. That is no longer the case in a world of instant communication.
People act like there is some divine providence written into every word. The Constitution IS IMPORTANT - as well as brilliant - but still it is not perfect either. It has needed adjusted from time to time. Or do you believe that no Constitutional Amendment should have ever been passed? Even the Bill of Rights was NOT in the original Constitution as ratified by the states. That is why they are referred to as the first 10
AMENDMENTS aka the first 10 changes to The Constitution.
I agree with a lot of your points, but little things we did along the way, to shy away from the Constitution, such as voting for out Fed Senators.... It should be done how the Constitution says.
As far as Amendments go, we should do it by the book, UNTILL THER IS AND ADMENDMENT stating otherwise. Thus still doing it by the book.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Just what I expected, you didn't grasp the initial quote... which is why you can come up with something irrelevant. A Republic means a system of government which derives its power from the people rather than from another basis, such as heredity, divine right, monarch. Madison defined republic in terms of representative democracy (we elect officials to pass and deliberate on legislation on our behalf and the people in each state vote for electors) as opposed to direct democracy (all citizens can directly participate in the decision-making process).