Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 01:11 pm
Have you guys heard about this **** yet?

Seems like a wet dream for liberals until it becomes their nightmare fueled psychosis...

Quote:
The National Popular Vote interstate compact would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. The bill ensures that every vote, in every state, will matter in every presidential election. The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections.

The National Popular Vote bill has been enacted by 13 jurisdictions possessing 181 electoral votes, including four small jurisdictions (RI, VT, HI, DC), five medium- size states (CO, CT, MD, MA, WA), and four big states (NJ, IL, NY, CA). The bill will take effect when enacted by states with 89 more electoral votes. The bill is on the governor's desk in Delaware and New Mexico. The bill has previously passed at least one chamber in 8 additional states with 72 more electoral votes. A total of 3,125 state legislators from all 50 states have endorsed it.

The shortcomings of the current system of electing the President stem from “winner-take-all” laws that have been enacted by state legislatures in 48 states. These laws award all of a state’s electoral votes to the candidate receiving the most popular votes in each state.

Because of these state winner-take-all statutes, presidential candidates have no reason to pay attention to the issues of concern to voters in states where the statewide outcome is a foregone conclusion. In 2012, as shown on the map, all of the 253 general-election campaign events were in just 12 states, and two-thirds were in just 4 states (Ohio, Florida, Virginia, and Iowa). Thirty-eight states were completely ignored.


So, now Presidential candidates will visit large cities with a population > 100,000 and pretty much give the rest of the country the middle finger. This is straight up retarded.

But, seeing NYS vote Republican would be kind of cool I suppose.

Are you for or against?
 
engineer
 
  3  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 01:37 pm
@McGentrix,
Generally in favor, but not holding my breath. The low population states will never vote for an amendment that lessens their influence. I don't think it would change the way politics is run in the way you suggest. I think all politicians focus on large cities where they can draw large crowds and that wouldn't change. What would change would be where politicians advertise. Republicans would no longer write off New York and California and the Democrats would no longer write off the South and West. If you can get credit for getting 40% of the vote instead of just 35%, it makes sense to invest. Today, once they determine they have lost a state, they pull out.
Below viewing threshold (view)
maxdancona
 
  -4  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 02:55 pm
@McGentrix,
I think the idea of choosing the president with all of his executive power by popular vote is lunacy. Most people get their news from Facebook, and few people have greater than a 2nd grade tabloid understanding of any of the issues (and yet we have people on MTV trying to get more uninformed, ignorant people to vote).

I don't think this is a good idea, however I am not sure it is any worse than what we have now.

Voting should favor voters with intelligence.

RABEL222
 
  3  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 04:29 pm
@maxdancona,
Would voters of intelligence be the same as voters who agree with everything you post.
Below viewing threshold (view)
maxdancona
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 04:43 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

Would voters of intelligence be the same as voters who agree with everything you post.


Of course!
0 Replies
 
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Tue 19 Mar, 2019 07:12 pm
@engineer,
My thoughts too.
0 Replies
 
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Mar, 2019 05:06 am
Generally against. To me this isn't a republican vs democrat thing - the electoral vote was put in place to protect everyone's interest. A small population state like Alaska and Montana would have little to say in their interests as larger populated states' interests would rule the country.

Forget about elections - all the candidates would campaign in a handful of states - the US would be run by California, Texas, Florida and New York.
Linkat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Mar, 2019 05:10 am
@engineer,
engineer wrote:

Generally in favor, but not holding my breath. The low population states will never vote for an amendment that lessens their influence. I don't think it would change the way politics is run in the way you suggest. I think all politicians focus on large cities where they can draw large crowds and that wouldn't change. What would change would be where politicians advertise. Republicans would no longer write off New York and California and the Democrats would no longer write off the South and West. If you can get credit for getting 40% of the vote instead of just 35%, it makes sense to invest. Today, once they determine they have lost a state, they pull out.


Not necessarily many less populated states are heavily visited such as NH, Colorada and Nevada.
eurocelticyankee
 
  3  
Reply Wed 20 Mar, 2019 05:20 am
@oralloy,
Could we have a psychiatric assessment test as well, to filter out the psychopaths.
maporsche
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Mar, 2019 01:53 pm
@Linkat,
That's generally during the primary campaigns though, correct? I don't see why that would change.

But also, a small minority of people go to campaign rally's/event's in today's system.

I'm not sure it makes sense to essentially disenfranchise the 1.2 MM people who voted for Donald Trump in Colorado because a few thousand won't have a rally to attend.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Mar, 2019 02:15 pm
@Linkat,
What Ive heard is that several of the smaller (pop) states would "Group up" and pool their election results
0 Replies
 
thack45
 
  2  
Reply Wed 20 Mar, 2019 03:17 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

We could weigh voting strength with some sort of standardized IQ test. The higher the score, the more your vote counts.

While I really don't want any change from the current system, Max's proposal does have merit.


I'll go you one better. How about the candidates undergo an IQ test?
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Wed 20 Mar, 2019 03:24 pm
The college was met to have states leaders picked to then be the electors.

I question if some one like Trump could have had a chance in hell of winning the votes of such electors.

Those who are defending the college existed might consider going back to the originate idea of such an institutions an not binding the electors to vote for the winner of the states votes.

The back smoke file rooms of the parties are gone an the electoral college no longer can do any filtering so we get the worst of not having any filtering and not having the desire of the people as a people reflect either.

This time we ended up with a not all that bright conman demagogue an who can say what we might end up in the future.
0 Replies
 
maxdancona
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 20 Mar, 2019 03:37 pm
@thack45,
I don't think it should be an IQ test. I think it should be a political aptitude test.

The questions should measure a person's ability to come up with the correct answer to the political issues facing us today.
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 20 Mar, 2019 03:59 pm
@maxdancona,
maxdancona wrote:

the correct answer to the political issues facing us today.


Who would be qualified to judge the answers.
maxdancona
 
  0  
Reply Wed 20 Mar, 2019 04:06 pm
@McGentrix,
Who do you think?

(You might want to set aside some time to study).
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Wed 20 Mar, 2019 10:14 pm
There's a whole lot of ignorance here. The constitution does not tell electors how to vote, with the exception of the twelfth amendment, which requires them to cast a vote for president and a vote for vice president. The "evil" of the electoral college came after the elections of 1828 and especially after 1832. In 1824, Jackson had the largest popular vote, and the largest electoral vote, but he did not have a majority in the electoral college, so the election was thrown into the House. The speaker of the House was Henry Clay, and he had come fourth in the election, and was therefore not in consideration. He hated Jackson. He wrote to friend that he did not believe that killing 2500 Englishmen at New Orleans qualified Jackson for the job. So he threw his considerable influence behind John Q. Adams. Jackson went back to Tennessee and began organizing the Democratic Party (previously, the United States had effectively been a one party state, dominated by the Democratic-Republicans--don't buy that Democratic bullshit that they're the party of Jefferson). He won the 1828 election, and the Democrats began to take over state houses. In 1832, the Democrats took over most state houses, and that was when states began instituting the winner-take-all allocation of electoral vaults.

The only constitutional fault here is that the states are empowered to certify their own elections. Forty-eight states have winner-take-all systems, only and Maine and Nebraska allocate electoral votes proportionally.
0 Replies
 
Ragman
 
  2  
Reply Thu 21 Mar, 2019 06:22 pm
@eurocelticyankee,
Where would you find a psychiatrist that could pass such a test? Furthermore what politician could pass. After all, they have to take a poll to decide on what color socks to wear. Then form a committee to find the feasibility of imprisonments for those who want to go sockkess.
 

 
  1. Forums
  2. » National Popular Vote
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 01/21/2022 at 12:40:42