Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Unlock unbeatable offers today. Shop here: https://amzn.to/4cEkqYs 🎁
How can the state have this responsibility when the issue need not even be put to a vote?States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.It's time for the EC to be scrapped, and the popular vote be the decider.
Power in america is already too centralized. We need to return to states rights as the FF intended.
The candidate with the most votes wins in every other election in the country
Every other election is at the State or partial State level
And voters in a presidential election are in all 50 states and DC.
No shit, what's your point beyond what we were already discussing?
The point is, that most Americans believe presidential elections should be determined by the winner of the national popular vote.
Based on what?
I am not missing any point. And neither are voters in small states who support the National Popular Vote bill.
The point is that NOW, with the current system (not mentioned in the Constitution), a candidate could lose in the 39 "smallest" states and win the Presidency.
But the political reality is that the 11 largest states are politically divided, as are the small states, and do not ALL vote 100% for either party.
Voters in California and New York would not overwhelm the votes of the 48 other states.
I'm not sure if you're aware of the phenomenon or not--I'm not sure there is a name for it--but when you have a hypothetical such as this non-binding resolution passed by some state, people in the government will vote one way. When there is a real chance that there may be some effect and after some learned reflection, they will likely vote differently.
Put another way, the legislators are aware that their votes do not matter so they, not surprisingly, cast them for the most popular stance
. . .
The National Popular Vote bill is NOT a non-binding resolution.
Sure it is. Everyone who voted for it knew that when they were casting their vote, the measure had no hope of being considered, much less ratified. If there were actual skin in the game, the deliberations would be much more serious as would the manner in which the legislators cast their ballot.
The National Popular Vote bill is law in 11 jurisdictions now.
I think you need to look up "National" in a dictionary. lol
None of this answers my question. Try again.How can the state have this responsibility when the issue need not even be put to a vote?States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.It's time for the EC to be scrapped, and the popular vote be the decider.
Power in america is already too centralized. We need to return to states rights as the FF intended.
Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“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."
Completely unnecessary. States can already seat their electors by proportional representation, if they choose.The official name is the "Agreement Among the States to Elect the President by National Popular Vote."
Because I don't really give a fuck what NY and California want.Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?
The constitution is the supreme authority in the Country, only to be overridden if the will of the people exceeds 3/4 of the States and 2/3rd's of the federal legislature.
That's incorrect. The states can amend the constitution all by themselves by calling a constitutional convention. They do NOT need the feds at all.
OTOH, the feds CANNOT amend their own constitution. More proof that the FF placed the states above the federal govt.
That's ONE power they gave the states. Overall the federal government rules.
But its only supposed to rule on items specifically given to them as proscribed powers and responsibilities.
Not "everything under the sun because "commerce clause, fuh fuh fuh, promote general welfare, fuh fuh"
The 17th Amendment is what fucked over the States letting the people choose their Senators. Now they want to screw up selecting the President. We choose the House. The allocate the funds to pay for this government. We restrain the Hose so they don't overspend. Liberals screwing with our Constitution screwed everything up. They always do.Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?
Using Single Transfer Vote..... Simple and would stop half the messing...
Simplest, and how virtually every other election in the country is run.
Every voter, everywhere, voting for the candidates matters and count equally. The candidate with the most votes wins.
Time for you to get started on passing your Constitutional amendment.
They primary in every state and any other state during the general until the state is locked down. It only makes sense to concentrate on the swing states after that.NPV is a stupid idea and fucks over smaller States. Candidates would only campaign in urban areas and promise most federal spending goes to the urban area. This is a liberal trick to have power for eternity.Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“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."
The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in the country, by changing state winner-take-all laws (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), without changing anything in the Constitution, using the built-in method that the Constitution provides for states to make changes.
Every vote, everywhere, for every candidate, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps of pre-determined outcomes.
No more handful of 'battleground' states (where the two major political parties happen to have similar levels of support among voters) where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 38+ predictable states that have just been 'spectators' and ignored after the conventions.
The bill would take effect when enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes—270 of 538.
All of the presidential electors from the enacting states will be supporters of the presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC)—thereby guaranteeing that candidate with an Electoral College majority.
The bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, red, blue, and purple states with 261 electoral votes.
The bill has been enacted by 11 small, medium, and large jurisdictions with 165 electoral votes – 61% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Right now, candidates only campaign in swing states....how is that different?
Every other election is at the State or partial State level
And voters in a presidential election are in all 50 states and DC.
No shit, what's your point beyond what we were already discussing?
The point is, that most Americans believe presidential elections should be determined by the winner of the national popular vote.
Based on what?
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in every state surveyed recently. In the 41 red, blue, and purple states surveyed, overall support has been in the 67-81% range - in rural states, in small states, in Southern and border states, in big states, and in other states polled.
NationalPopularVote.com
Contradiction. You people have to understand that the needs of Iowa is far different than New York. NY has multiple times the EC votes than Iowa. Pols are far more likely to promise shit to NY than Iowa, yet I pay the same tax rate as a NewYorker. And you can bet the farm there are multiple more welfare checks and non taxpayers in NY than Iowa. The EC system is the only fair way to select our President. Leave a good system alone. NY state power and influence is in the House where the money is allocated.It's to easy to do a popular vote now, so I don't even see the use of the EV
sure, pols would stick mostly to the cities, but isn't that what tv is for?
how many attend a rally v watch it on tv or net?
and the person that goes to the country side has a far better chance than the person that stuck to just the cities
That's not only a bold assertion, it's a life, and a personal attack. You have expanded your lie from gerrymandering to "when they do the same things." That is a fallacy of argumentum absurdum. Do you have any examples? You are now dubbed Kazcuck.You're lying Jake, you never criticize Democrats when they and Republicans do the same things, you only criticize Republicans for itPersonal attacks, bold assertions, lies, etc., shows kaz to be a dull person.What lie? You didn't disagree with anything I said, dumb ass.You have a serious alcohol problem, don't you, Jake?You always squeal when you get caught in your lies. When have I ever not condemned or excused gerrymandering? You put words in other peoples' mouths they did not say because you don't have the truth. You are a mental midget.That's what I said you fucking retard. What does it take for you to grasp a point? My point, Jake, is that when the Republicans do it, you squeal like a stuck pig and when the Democrats do it you ho hum. But they both do it. Buy a clue
you wrote that when the Republicans do it, you squeal like a stuck pig but excuse the Dems
Dull Person Kaz, that is a lie.
We need a "fuck yeah" icon.If it was a national popular vote, small states might as well not even vote. A City like Baltimore would displace the whole of the northern plains states. No fairness in that at all...
This is supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy.
No we don't. trump is campaigning here and listening to our needs. What's he doing in NY.The small states get displaced anyway. One person one vote is superior to any system concocted to advantage conservatives
No we don't. trump is campaigning here and listening to our needs. What's he doing in NY.The small states get displaced anyway. One person one vote is superior to any system concocted to advantage conservatives
For Iowa that would be 6 of us.Going by popular vote is just mob rule. Dip shitBy gerrymandered congressional districts? Are you mental?
You got a better idea? What makes you so certain there would be gerrymandering. ? THINK
The popular vote is the better idea, then no one can claim their vote doesn't count.
If the People are a mob that shouldn't be allowed a voice in government, then you're opting for rule by a few.
Who should that few be?
. How has Iowa Governor Branstad affected you in NY? See the difference?,Then every governor in this country is elected by mob rule, if I'm not mistaken
If Hillary wins, you can cont n it.The probability of such an Art V convention is not likely.
new york is one of the few states that has over 20 ec votes.Contradiction. You people have to understand that the needs of Iowa is far different than New York. NY has multiple times the EC votes than Iowa. Pols are far more likely to promise shit to NY than Iowa, yet I pay the same tax rate as a NewYorker. And you can bet the farm there are multiple more welfare checks and non taxpayers in NY than Iowa. The EC system is the only fair way to select our President. Leave a good system alone. NY state power and influence is in the House where the money is allocated.It's to easy to do a popular vote now, so I don't even see the use of the EV
sure, pols would stick mostly to the cities, but isn't that what tv is for?
how many attend a rally v watch it on tv or net?
and the person that goes to the country side has a far better chance than the person that stuck to just the cities
Not at allIf Hillary wins, you can cont n it.The probability of such an Art V convention is not likely.
