or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Every Vote Counts--Not Anymore!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Every Vote Counts--Not Anymore!

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
I just read about something very disturbing: A state-by-state effort to enact a defacto national popular vote for the Presidential election:

Quote:
Under the proposed law, all 12 of the state's electoral votes would be awarded to the candidate who receives the most votes nationally.

Quote:
Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii, Maryland, and Washington have already adopted the legislation, according to the National Popular Vote campaign's website.

Critics....also point to the disturbing scenario that Candidate X wins nationally, but Candidate Y has won in Massachusetts. In that case, all of the state's 12 electoral votes would go to Candidate X, the candidate who was not supported by Massachusetts voters.

Pardon me, but fucking seriously? There is a very real possibility that your vote will not count if you live in one these states that has enacted the law. Such a system would also ensure that politicians would only campaign in the most populated areas, focusing on large cities.

But there's more: Because the legislation is being pushed state-by-state, we may end up with a Constitutional crisis on our hands. While the Constitution allows states to determine the method of choosing electors, it also guarantees Equal Protection. In other words, my vote can't count more than yours does. Say you live in Kansas, and Candidate "R" gets 65% of the vote in your state. But nationally, Candidate "D" takes 51% nationally. The 65% of the people that voted for Candidate "R" now have seen their votes essentially switched! The Equal Protection argument comes into play when one realizes that living in Pennsylvania, I don't have this problem. Whomever wins a majority in my state gets the electors, regardless of how other states vote.

Of course, states are not even required to hold elections at all to appoint electors, so it's doubtful a solid Equal Protection argument could be made.

What are your thoughts?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #2 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I just read about something very disturbing: A state-by-state effort to enact a defacto national popular vote for the Presidential election:

Democrats are starting their 2012 election plans here and realize that attacking the Electoral College may give them a leg up in 2012... Americans should be truly alarmed. Be aware that the first design of the Electoral College (described in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution along with its evolution since the 12th Amendment) makes it a Constitutional provision by the Founding Fathers under United States law; not something Democrats should trifle with just to help them politically. Every American's vote is integral to our elections and the very concept of democracy; the Electoral College assures those liberties. Efforts to bypass the Electoral College system and favor huge urban voting blocks unfairly over lesser populated states does an injustice to fairness and blocks the fairness the Founding Fathers designed.
post #3 of 12
Instead of an all or none as in California, where the person getting the majority takes all of California's 55 electoral votes, it is proportioned on the percentage of votes. If candidate x wins 51%, then that person gets 23 of the votes to 22 of the losing candidates votes.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #4 of 12
Oh your god! The 35% who didn't vote for the R in Iowa don't have their votes count! Winner take all is fucking stupid. The electoral college is fucking stupid.

Please, for fuck's sake, can we just go to a national alternative voting system?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #5 of 12
Before brazenly tossing out a core constitutional institution perhaps it would be helpful to understand the logic and reason behind it and then dispassionately and rationally discuss the pros and cons of it.

Maybe.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #6 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by BR View Post

Oh your god! The 35% who didn't vote for the R in Iowa don't have their votes count! Winner take all is fucking stupid. The electoral college is fucking stupid.

Please, for fuck's sake, can we just go to a national alternative voting system?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

While the EC is controversial, it is the way the President is officially elected see:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitutio...nstitution.pdf

Constitution of the US, Article II, Section 1, 2nd and 3rd Clauses
..Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress......The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons........The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President.....

In California, the candidate getting the majority of votes takes all of California's 55 electoral votes. Why do you think most of the Presidential candidates spend so much time in the most populated states of California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois and Pennsylvania?

To enact your proposal, you would have to amend the Constitution--not an easy task.
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #7 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

In California, the candidate getting the majority of votes takes all of California's 55 electoral votes. Why do you think most of the Presidential candidates spend so much time in the most populated states of California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois and Pennsylvania?

Actually, the opposite tends to be true (at least regarding CA, TX and NY) because these states are generally regarded as solidly for one party or the other. The candidates spend most of their time in the so-called "battleground states" which are mostly the same election to election (though do fluctuate with demographic changes, etc.), but are so named because they could swing either way and often have a good handful of EC votes. Ohio, IL, FL, CO, PA are some good examples.

In this sense one might argue that the EC is "good" because it basically gives candidates incentive to ignore the states that have largely already made up their minds and focus on those who are still trying to decide and, perhaps, have kept an open mind and aren't simply voting along party lines.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #8 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camp David View Post

Democrats are starting their 2012 election plans here and realize that attacking the Electoral College may give them a leg up in 2012... Every American's vote is integral to our elections and the very concept of democracy; the Electoral College assures those liberties. Efforts to bypass the Electoral College system and favor huge urban voting blocks unfairly over lesser populated states does an injustice to fairness and blocks the fairness the Founding Fathers designed.

One Comment: Hanging CHADS 2000 election
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
無心 The idea of wilderness needs no defense, it only needs defenders., Wilderness is not a luxury but a necessity of the human spirit__Edward Abbey
Reply
post #9 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Before brazenly tossing out a core constitutional institution perhaps it would be helpful to understand the logic and reason behind it and then dispassionately and rationally discuss the pros and cons of it.

Maybe.

Thanks for assuming that I haven't been over the reason and logic behind the system and simply find it to be quite fucking flawed.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #10 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

While the EC is controversial, it is the way the President is officially elected see:

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitutio...nstitution.pdf

Constitution of the US, Article II, Section 1, 2nd and 3rd Clauses
..Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress......The Electors shall meet in their respective States, and vote by Ballot for two Persons........The Person having the greatest Number of Votes shall be the President.....

In California, the candidate getting the majority of votes takes all of California's 55 electoral votes. Why do you think most of the Presidential candidates spend so much time in the most populated states of California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois and Pennsylvania?

To enact your proposal, you would have to amend the Constitution--not an easy task.

Wait, really? That's the system we use? I didn't know that. Thanks for telling me.

*sigh*

Duh, yes. That's what's in the constitution. And yes, it would require an amendment. Of course it won't be easy. The ease of the solution doesn't change my opinion.

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply

 

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” 
-Sagan
Reply
post #11 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by FineTunes View Post

One Comment: Hanging CHADS 2000 election

Nothing in the 2000 election prompted Republicans, Independents, and even sane Democrats from even considering changing the U.S. Constitution, amending or attacking the Electoral College system, or enact some sort of defacto national popular vote as is cited by the OP in post the first. These are all actions of left wing Democrats who read the tea leaves and see their changes in the coming election of between nope and zero.
post #12 of 12
This is a ridiculous idea, but no more ridiculous than the electoral college mishmash we use today. If you're concerned about every vote counting, you shouldn't be in favor of our current system.

The electoral college was designed for a situation where the people didn't vote for president. When we moved to a popular vote, we kept the electoral college, even though we no longer used it. It was stupid, but it didn't require a constitutional amendment.

This isn't a partisan issue. The electoral college doesn't necessarily favor Rs or Ds. Prior to 2000, the most common belief was that it favored Democrats, because Republicans would crush the Ds in all the small states with few electoral college votes, whereas Ds would beat Rs by small margins in big states with tons of electoral votes.This scenario was common before it, just by chance, turned out the other way in 2000. Those same scenarios, with the Electoral college favoring Kerry, also came up in 2004, and would have happened if Ohio had turned out a little different. But apparently we're all just too stupid and blinkered to see this, and instead just respond as if the 2000 election is the only way it could happen.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Every Vote Counts--Not Anymore!