Refresh your driving skills and learn about new car technology with the AARP Driver Safety page.

Reply
Frequent Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
859
Views

Re: Two questions about the popular vote

859 Views
Message 101 of 161

@cat2015 wrote:

@TappDoubt wrote:

@umbarch64 wrote:

There is a petition circulating that has to do with changing the national election process for president and vice president to popular vote without the necessity of a Constitutional amendment.  Those who may feel that is a good idea might want to look at the specifics.  It was on-line. 


-I'm pretty sure that the EC cannot be abolished without a constitutional amendment. If the majority of Americans are behind that, our representatives [theoretically] will have to get behind it as well.

 

So I guess the bigger question is: Just how well do your congressmen and senators represent your interests?


The Electoral College can be abolished without a constitutional amendment. All that is needed is that a majority of states agree to give their electoral votes to the popular vote winner. So far 14 states have passed this legislation, with Maryland passing it a few days ago.

 

This is a question that can be resolved in state legislatures without a constitutional amendment.

 


You're absolutely right. But, how long do you think it's going to take before 26+ states agree to this? State politics are very similar to federal politics, and the chances of a majority are mighty slim in today's climate. Moreover, the EC system remains intact in this scenario, so what's to prevent any state from re-negging when the political winds change direction?

 

Nope, I think an amendment is the way to go. The less middlemen you have between the voters and the candidate the better. I know - that's heresy.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
859
Views
Frequent Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
849
Views

Re: Two questions about the popular vote

849 Views
Message 102 of 161

@cat2015 wrote:

The primary purpose of the Electoral College was to prevent direct democracy. It was created in a time when only white men with property could vote--and even they couldn't vote for president. They could vote for their state legislators, who in turn would choose the electors, who in turn would choose the president. It was a vote thrice-removed. It took a constitutional amendment before white men without property could vote, another constitutional amendment before those white men could choose the electors directly, another constitutional amendment before non-whites could vote, and another constitutional amendment before women could vote. We've been moving slowly toward democracy, but the framers--products of the eighteenth century--were afraid of democracy. They felt that only the elites should decide the presidency.

 

A presidency decided by the popular vote would mean that everyone's vote counts. If you live in a swing state like Michigan that went for Trump by only 13,000 votes, your vote would still count if you voted for Clinton. If you live in a swing state like Florida whose vote went for Bush by a few hundred in 2000, your vote would still count if you voted for Gore. If you live in a deep blue state like California, your vote would still count if you voted for Trump. If you live in a deep red state like Texas, your vote would still count if you voted for Clinton.

 

In other words, no one is disenfranchised. No one is ignored during the race. We are one country deciding on our president, not a bunch of fragmented interests fighting for slim margins of victory in so-called battleground states.

 

-I think that promotes the argument very well. I purposely avoided use of the word 'elite' in my original post, but historically speaking, there's no other word that fits. And, that's my primary beef with the EC system. And Congress, and SCOTUS appointment, and the current two-party political circus. I most definitely understand why Trump won.

 

No, the founding fathers did not create the electoral system out of any flash of brilliance or love of democracy. They were simply protecting their interests of the day. However, they were smart enough to realize that in the future, many things would change. And they included a reset button when they built the Constitution. The amendment process. Anyone else think it's time to re-boot?


Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
849
Views
Highlighted
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
846
Views

Re: Two questions about the popular vote

846 Views
Message 103 of 161

@TxGrandpa2 wrote:

@cat2015 wrote:

 

This has nothing to do with small vs large states. With the exception of New Hampshire, small states today have little importance to the candidates. Since Montana has only one representative, it has only three electoral votes. Population already counts.

 



---

It has everything to do with small vs large states.   If the election was based on popular votes, the candidates by necessity would be spending more time in states with larger populations.  Read up on the reasons the founding fathers based presidential elections on electoral votes instead of popular votes.

 

California, with its liberal leanings would have more influence on the election than Montana.  So why should a candidate pay more attention to Montana?  They would go where the popular votes is.

 

If Clinton had won this election would you have been wanting the process to change...be honest to yourself.


As things are now, the candidates and their campaigns go after the states with the largest number of electoral votes, so the electoral vote process is not working to give the smaller states a bigger voice. States with a larger amount of electoral votes have more influence.

 

I have supported doing away with the Electoral College for a long long time, before Hillary ever ran for any office.


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
846
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
845
Views

Re: Two questions about the popular vote

845 Views
Message 104 of 161

@KidBoy2 wrote:
cat posted..

If we elect by popular vote, candidates would have to focus on issues that matter to most of the electorate, as opposed to making promises to particular states.

================================================
You got it backward ... the candidates would go were the votes are .. I explained that..please read my posts.

Right now they go where the electoral votes are.  Get it ??????


"The only thing man learns from history is man learns nothing from history"
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
845
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
818
Views

Re: Two questions about the popular vote

818 Views
Message 105 of 161

@KidBoy2 wrote:
cat posted..

This has nothing to do with small vs large states. With the exception of New Hampshire, small states today have little importance to the candidates. Since Montana has only one representative, it has only three electoral votes. Population already counts.

===============================================

I give up ... you do not want to listen to reason so be it.


--

Some only want to believe what they want to believe.   This is one of those cases.

 

Nothing you nor what anyone says would make a difference to her. 

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
818
Views
Treasured Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
815
Views

Re: Two questions about the popular vote

815 Views
Message 106 of 161

@cat2015 wrote:

 

This has nothing to do with small vs large states. With the exception of New Hampshire, small states today have little importance to the candidates. Since Montana has only one representative, it has only three electoral votes. Population already counts.

 



---

It has everything to do with small vs large states.   If the election was based on popular votes, the candidates by necessity would be spending more time in states with larger populations.  Read up on the reasons the founding fathers based presidential elections on electoral votes instead of popular votes.

 

California, with its liberal leanings would have more influence on the election than Montana.  So why should a candidate pay more attention to Montana?  They would go where the popular votes is.

 

If Clinton had won this election would you have been wanting the process to change...be honest to yourself.

Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
815
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
2
Kudos
849
Views

Re: Two questions about the popular vote

849 Views
Message 107 of 161

Of course I'm talking about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, Gail. What did you think I was talking about? Do you know of any other legislation addressing the popular vote??

 

I doubt that it would be a constitutional problem since the Constitution allows the states to allocate their electors.

 

Why in the world would the other states sign a pact allocating their votes to the Electoral College winner? Isn't that what we have today?

 

As demographics change, GOP states will be very open to changing to the popular vote. This isn't a partisan issue--it's a matter of moving into the 21st century with every other Western democracy.

 

 

 

 

Report Inappropriate Content
2
Kudos
849
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
849
Views

Re: Two questions about the popular vote

849 Views
Message 108 of 161

mick,

Sounds like you have the state and the voters all analyzed  - perhaps a campaign running is in your future career.

 

Nite -

* * * * * * * * *
MY SIGNATURE: "It’s Always something" - Roseanne Rosannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
849
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
0
Kudos
844
Views

Re: Two questions about the popular vote

844 Views
Message 109 of 161

@cat2015 wrote:

@GailL1 wrote:

Hey, mick, didn't you get a Republican Governor?

How does your state legislature add up?


What's your point? We're talking about the Electoral College vs the popular vote for president.

 

Are you just getting in a dig?

 

It sounds like residents in New Hampshire are more likely to vote for the candidate than for the party.

 

 

 

 


Actually, I was just answering mick's post about how his state faired through it all.

He does have a small but important state because they are 1st in timing and everybody wants to be seen and heard in the 1st place.

 

perhaps another part of our electoral process you may wish to change.  Perhaps CA should be 1st?

* * * * * * * * *
MY SIGNATURE: "It’s Always something" - Roseanne Rosannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
0
Kudos
844
Views
Valued Social Butterfly
1
Kudos
838
Views

Re: Two questions about the popular vote

838 Views
Message 110 of 161

@cat2015 wrote:

Sorry if I didn't explain myself clearly, Gail. I didn't mean that this legislation would literally get rid of the Electoral College. I meant that it would render the Electoral College irrelevant. It would continue to exist, but states get to decide how to allocate their votes, and they would allocate their electoral votes to the popular vote winner.

 

I hope that's clearer.

 

 

 


Again, are you talking about "The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact," ?

Because that method, I believe, is the only one that has several state supporting it at the legislative level.

 

They would only allocate their electoral votes to the popular vote winner under a "Pact" arrangement.

 

I believe the problem here is 2-fold, at least at the present time.

1.  With the majority of states being under Republican control, don't think it will get too far in number of states signing on or perhaps others could set up an opposing pact and the strength would still lie in the strength of the electoral vote.

2.  Think it would be Constitutionally challenged.

* * * * * * * * *
MY SIGNATURE: "It’s Always something" - Roseanne Rosannadanna
Report Inappropriate Content
1
Kudos
838
Views