It's Time to Award Electoral College Votes by Congressional District

[AvgGuyIA]

Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?

FUCK NO!!!!

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Yeah, the founders weren't keen at all on opening up democracy to the rabbl

Democracy gives you places like Greece. Need I say more?

 

[AvgGuyIA]

This is a state by state issue.

And why would any state willingly volunteer to go first?

For instance- why would either Texas or California volunteer to change their systems- while knowing that the other state will still go winner take all- which favors the party in power in the state?

I am not completely against the idea- just that there is no practical way to address it without a Constitutional Amendment.

A national election is a state by state issue, brilliant.

Are you kidding?????

Stupid much?

Could you manage to state something perhaps?

It is a state by state issue and must stay that way.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).

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.

If a republican was likely to win the majority of votes, Democrat states in the Compact would leave the Compact at the last moment to declare their EC votes go to the Democrat. Didn't know about that loophole did you?

 

[bripat9643]

You and your one horse town.

Doesn't matter. I don't think the electoral vote should be based on districts but on the nation as a whole. We are no longer a majority of rural farming communities living in the 18th century.

WTF are you talking about? Try addressing my point. This is like the fourth time in a row you couldn't. You a mutt or a pussy?

Democrats Gerrymandered for 50 years. What is wrong with you that you don't even grasp that's what I'm saying? I mean duh, what does it take for you to process a point?

But...but....<sob>....... Democrats do it too!

So you admit they are a bunch of big fat hypocrites?

I love it when you douche bags whine when Republicans play by the rules you wrote.

 

[bripat9643]

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

And it would destroy the idea of states rights - something our founding fathers fervently believed in. THINK

Democrats believe states rights is racist.

 

[bripat9643]

The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and the District of Columbia.

And it would destroy the idea of states rights - something our founding fathers fervently believed in. THINK

The states destroyed those rights in the Civil War.

No, Lincoln did.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

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

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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A national election is a state by state issue, brilliant.

Are you kidding?????

Stupid much?

Could you manage to state something perhaps?

It is a state by state issue and must stay that way.

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 34 state legislative chambers in 23 rural, small, medium, large, Democratic, Republican and purple states with 261 electoral votes, including one house in Arizona (11), Arkansas (6), Maine (4), Michigan (16), Nevada (6), New Mexico (5), North Carolina (15), and Oklahoma (7), and both houses in Colorado (9).

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.

If a republican was likely to win the majority of votes, Democrat states in the Compact would leave the Compact at the last moment to declare their EC votes go to the Democrat. Didn't know about that loophole did you?

You did not know that they had to do by May 1 of the election year.

 

[rightwinger]

Want to know the OP's motivation?

In 2012, Obama won the popular vote by 5 million votes

In 2012, Obama won the electoral vote by 126 votes

In 2012, Obama LOST the vote by Congressional district, 209 to Romney's 226.

Once again, all you have here is some RW'er trying to concoct cockeyed election method that would tip elections towards the Republicans.

http://cookpolitical.com/file/2013-04-50.pdf

More Republicans trying to rule from a minority

 

[rightwinger]

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

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.

Right now, candidates only campaign in swing states....how is that different?

 

[Two Thumbs]

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

 

[Kondor3]

Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?

Because the founders decided that was a really stupid idea.

The Founders were largely wealthy men of property, unwilling to put the fate of the Republic into the hands of those less-well propertied.

The population of the United States was largely uneducated at the time; however, that is no longer true.

Instantaneous and ubiquitous communications and real-time news and political coverage have moved the ball far downfield towards Popular Governance.

The Will of the People is the Supreme Authority in this country.

The time for an Electoral College passed with the advent and widespread implementation of high speed computing and data communications.

The time has come to eliminate the Electoral College altogether; substituting a popular vote that can now be counted accurately at lightning speed.

Or, de-activate the thing, and hold it reserve, much like a pad of paper and a Number Two pencil in a desk drawer, in case the power goes out.

The Electoral College is an anachronism - a cumbersome, clumsy and un-wanted mechanism of the past that can safely be eliminated.

 

[kaz]

You and your one horse town.

Doesn't matter. I don't think the electoral vote should be based on districts but on the nation as a whole. We are no longer a majority of rural farming communities living in the 18th century.

WTF are you talking about? Try addressing my point. This is like the fourth time in a row you couldn't. You a mutt or a pussy?

Democrats Gerrymandered for 50 years. What is wrong with you that you don't even grasp that's what I'm saying? I mean duh, what does it take for you to process a point?

Swish. I thought you were older than me, and you still don't get it? Democrats Gerrymandered the majority of my life. You're like WTF, they did? OK, well, now it's the Republicans and you're against it ... all of a sudden ...

GOP have always gerrymandered when possible, just like the Dems. Your bold assertions mean nothing without evidence. I knew both of those thing in my teens.

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

 

[martybegan]

Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?

Because the founders decided that was a really stupid idea.

The Founders were largely wealthy men of property, unwilling to put the fate of the Republic into the hands of those less-well propertied.

The population of the United States was largely uneducated at the time; however, that is no longer true.

Instantaneous and ubiquitous communications and real-time news and political coverage have moved the ball far downfield towards Popular Governance.

The Will of the People is the Supreme Authority in this country.

The time for an Electoral College passed with the advent and widespread implementation of high speed computing and data communications.

The time has come to eliminate the Electoral College altogether; substituting a popular vote that can now be counted accurately at lightning speed.

Or, de-activate the thing, and hold it reserve, much like a pad of paper and a Number Two pencil in a desk drawer, in case the power goes out.

The Electoral College is an anachronism - a cumbersome, clumsy and un-wanted mechanism of the past that can safely be eliminated.

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.

 

[Rustic]

Why not go with the nationwide popular vote?

That's just Mob rule. Dip shit

 

[rdean]

This change would not benefit either party. Lots of republican states that have liberal districts too..

Don't be an idiot.

 

[Rustic]

By 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.

Going by popular vote is just mob rule. Dip shit

 

[Rustic]

I was wondering when we’d get our first crybaby thread about the EC.

The winning position is that you make it to where the President-elect would have to win both the majority of EV and the plurality of the PV. We can’t get rid of the EC all together because people would only campaign in the large cities. Congressional districts would also be a stupid idea given how the media is dominant over a region. However, in this day and age of being able to tally votes within days if not hours…it makes no sense to ignore the popular vote any longer.

It's crazy because the EC already favors them. They have multiple states that are just empty land, but still get the minimum 3 EV's even though their population doesn't warrant it.

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.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I was wondering when we’d get our first crybaby thread about the EC.

The winning position is that you make it to where the President-elect would have to win both the majority of EV and the plurality of the PV. We can’t get rid of the EC all together because people would only campaign in the large cities. Congressional districts would also be a stupid idea given how the media is dominant over a region. However, in this day and age of being able to tally votes within days if not hours…it makes no sense to ignore the popular vote any longer.

It's crazy because the EC already favors them. They have multiple states that are just empty land, but still get the minimum 3 EV's even though their population doesn't warrant it.

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.

The small states get displaced anyway. One person one vote is superior to any system concocted to advantage conservatives.