Posted: 10/17/2012 7:28:11 AM EDT
|
I was thinking about the states that say they are going to give their electoral college votes to the winner of the popular vote.
After reading this Wikipedia page it doesn't look like enough states got on board to make it actually happen. I'm pretty fuzzy on the whole thing though. Anybody more familiar with the whole thing and whether or not it is even relevant to the upcoming election? Better links would be much appreciated. |
| Can't see how it's relevant. Basically how it ends up working anyway, right? Electors vote based on the popular in their state. Honestly the whole popular vote thing is counter to how we were founded to begin with, do we really want mob rule throughout our nation when only 47% of us are taxpayers? |
|
Quoted:
Can't see how it's relevant. Basically how it ends up working anyway, right? Electors vote based on the popular in their state. Honestly the whole popular vote thing is counter to how we were founded to begin with, do we really want mob rule throughout our nation when only 47% of us are taxpayers? I think it would have changed the Bush/Gore election. As I understand it, that's what got the movement started. |
|
Quoted: Bump. Anybody? The electoral college has the tradition of voting with the popular vote. But technically they don't have to. In all states save two its winner takes all. Which means we can have "landslides" and yet still have a relatively close popular vote count. The President also technically isn't elected November 6, he will be elected in December when the electoral college casts its vote. |
|
So... Candidate A wins popular vote in State X Candidate B wins popular vote nationwide. Electoral delegates from State X give their electoral votes to Candidate B, contrary to the wishes of the voters from their own state. If that's the case, I see a lot of incumbents losing their seats the next time State X holds elections for statewide office. If you have not noticed, politicians don't like losing elections. I don't see this going too far. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Bump. Anybody? The electoral college has the tradition of voting with the popular vote. But technically they don't have to. In all states save two its winner takes all. Which means we can have "landslides" and yet still have a relatively close popular vote count. The President also technically isn't elected November 6, he will be elected in December when the electoral college casts its vote. Technically you can lose the popular vote and win the electoral. States like CA really boost that popular vote in close elections. |
|
Quoted: Can't see how it's relevant. Basically how it ends up working anyway, right? Electors vote based on the popular in their state. Honestly the whole popular vote thing is counter to how we were founded to begin with, do we really want mob rule throughout our nation when only 47% of us are taxpayers? Under this the electors would vote for who won the national popular vote. Such a thing will destory this country, worse than the 17A. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Bump. Anybody? The electoral college has the tradition of voting with the popular vote. But technically they don't have to. In all states save two its winner takes all. Which means we can have "landslides" and yet still have a relatively close popular vote count. The President also technically isn't elected November 6, he will be elected in December when the electoral college casts its vote. Umm, thanks but I understand how the electoral college works. I'm talking about the states saying they are going to give their votes to the winner of the overall popular election. |
|
The Wikipedia shows 8 states already passing laws saying they will do this, and several more with pending legislation. That's as of June 1, 2012.
It's all liberal states right now, so probably wouldn't make much difference to a republican. I worry when I see that North Carolina has this pending though. I actually had ideas that this could benefit Romney if he managed to win the popular vote. But it looks like they have it setup so that participation by more states is needed before it will actually go into action. If this kind of thing is adopted by just a few swing states, it could be a very bad thing for Republicans. |
|
The idiots espousing this fail to comprehend why the Electoral College exists in the first place, which was to prevent any one state or group of states becoming too influential in presidential elections. Were the popular vote rule in effect, the candidates would only campaign in areas with large and dense populations. So, farewell to any voice in the executive branch for states like Montana or South Dakota. You'd never see the candidates, nor would your issues.
This is a trojan horse attack on our representative democracy, and if you follow the trail back, it leads right to George Soros. Things like this are why that individual should be banished from this country, and any wealth he transfers here ought to be confiscated and used to pay down the National Debt. He is a malign influence, and things like his Secretary of State program have clearly been used to undermine the rule of law in this nation. Al Franken is a Senator due in large part to Soro's use of money to influence the outcome of elections. Without Franken, there'd be no Obamacare. |
|
Quoted:
The Wikipedia shows 8 states already passing laws saying they will do this, and several more with pending legislation. That's as of June 1, 2012. It's all liberal states right now, so probably wouldn't make much difference to a republican. I worry when I see that North Carolina has this pending though. I actually had ideas that this could benefit Romney if he managed to win the popular vote. But it looks like they have it setup so that participation by more states is needed before it will actually go into action. If this kind of thing is adopted by just a few swing states, it could be a very bad thing for Republicans. I'm pretty sure NC shot this down previously. Just because it's listed as pending doesn't mean that it has a chance, only that at least one representative is pushing it. |
|
Quoted:
The idiots espousing this fail to comprehend why the Electoral College exists in the first place, which was to prevent any one state or group of states becoming too influential in presidential elections. Were the popular vote rule in effect, the candidates would only campaign in areas with large and dense populations. So, farewell to any voice in the executive branch for states like Montana or South Dakota. You'd never see the candidates, nor would your issues. This is a trojan horse attack on our representative democracy, and if you follow the trail back, it leads right to George Soros. Things like this are why that individual should be banished from this country, and any wealth he transfers here ought to be confiscated and used to pay down the National Debt. He is a malign influence, and things like his Secretary of State program have clearly been used to undermine the rule of law in this nation. Al Franken is a Senator due in large part to Soro's use of money to influence the outcome of elections. Without Franken, there'd be no Obamacare. I pretty much agree with you. But this is apparently law in several states now and being considered in several others. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The Wikipedia shows 8 states already passing laws saying they will do this, and several more with pending legislation. That's as of June 1, 2012. It's all liberal states right now, so probably wouldn't make much difference to a republican. I worry when I see that North Carolina has this pending though. I actually had ideas that this could benefit Romney if he managed to win the popular vote. But it looks like they have it setup so that participation by more states is needed before it will actually go into action. If this kind of thing is adopted by just a few swing states, it could be a very bad thing for Republicans. I'm pretty sure NC shot this down previously. Just because it's listed as pending doesn't mean that it has a chance, only that at least one representative is pushing it. Glad to hear that. You guys have me worried enough already, being listed as a toss up for the election. |
|
Quoted:
The idiots espousing this fail to comprehend why the Electoral College exists in the first place, which was to prevent any one state or group of states becoming too influential in presidential elections. Were the popular vote rule in effect, the candidates would only campaign in areas with large and dense populations. So, farewell to any voice in the executive branch for states like Montana or South Dakota. You'd never see the candidates, nor would your issues. This is a trojan horse attack on our representative democracy, and if you follow the trail back, it leads right to George Soros. Things like this are why that individual should be banished from this country, and any wealth he transfers here ought to be confiscated and used to pay down the National Debt. He is a malign influence, and things like his Secretary of State program have clearly been used to undermine the rule of law in this nation. Al Franken is a Senator due in large part to Soro's use of money to influence the outcome of elections. Without Franken, there'd be no Obamacare. I think some of them do comprehend the purpose of the EC and seek to eliminate it for that purpose. They've already gone a long ways towards that end, making the election of the President not too far removed from a direct popular election. Having an EC was meant to do several things, and not allowing the most populous States to totally dominate the Presidential election was only one of them. The EC was never meant to have any tie to a "popular vote." For multiple elections there was not even a popular vote to tally, as Electors were either not directly elected or were elected, but ran in their own name, did not pladge their votes to anyone, and were chosen based on their qualities as individuals. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can't see how it's relevant. Basically how it ends up working anyway, right? Electors vote based on the popular in their state. Honestly the whole popular vote thing is counter to how we were founded to begin with, do we really want mob rule throughout our nation when only 47% of us are taxpayers? I think it would have changed the Bush/Gore election. As I understand it, that's what got the movement started. And the movement will end the minute the situations are reversed. Best bet is to split electoral votes. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
The idiots espousing this fail to comprehend why the Electoral College exists in the first place, which was to prevent any one state or group of states becoming too influential in presidential elections. Were the popular vote rule in effect, the candidates would only campaign in areas with large and dense populations. So, farewell to any voice in the executive branch for states like Montana or South Dakota. You'd never see the candidates, nor would your issues. This is a trojan horse attack on our representative democracy, and if you follow the trail back, it leads right to George Soros. Things like this are why that individual should be banished from this country, and any wealth he transfers here ought to be confiscated and used to pay down the National Debt. He is a malign influence, and things like his Secretary of State program have clearly been used to undermine the rule of law in this nation. Al Franken is a Senator due in large part to Soro's use of money to influence the outcome of elections. Without Franken, there'd be no Obamacare. I think some of them do comprehend the purpose of the EC and seek to eliminate it for that purpose. They've already gone a long ways towards that end, making the election of the President not too far removed from a direct popular election. Having an EC was meant to do several things, and not allowing the most populous States to totally dominate the Presidential election was only one of them. The EC was never meant to have any tie to a "popular vote." For multiple elections there was not even a popular vote to tally, as Electors were either not directly elected or were elected, but ran in their own name, did not pladge their votes to anyone, and were chosen based on their qualities as individuals. I think you have that exactly right. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: The idiots espousing this fail to comprehend why the Electoral College exists in the first place, which was to prevent any one state or group of states becoming too influential in presidential elections. Were the popular vote rule in effect, the candidates would only campaign in areas with large and dense populations. So, farewell to any voice in the executive branch for states like Montana or South Dakota. You'd never see the candidates, nor would your issues. This is a trojan horse attack on our representative democracy, and if you follow the trail back, it leads right to George Soros. Things like this are why that individual should be banished from this country, and any wealth he transfers here ought to be confiscated and used to pay down the National Debt. He is a malign influence, and things like his Secretary of State program have clearly been used to undermine the rule of law in this nation. Al Franken is a Senator due in large part to Soro's use of money to influence the outcome of elections. Without Franken, there'd be no Obamacare. I think some of them do comprehend the purpose of the EC and seek to eliminate it for that purpose. They've already gone a long ways towards that end, making the election of the President not too far removed from a direct popular election. Having an EC was meant to do several things, and not allowing the most populous States to totally dominate the Presidential election was only one of them. The EC was never meant to have any tie to a "popular vote." For multiple elections there was not even a popular vote to tally, as Electors were either not directly elected or were elected, but ran in their own name, did not pladge their votes to anyone, and were chosen based on their qualities as individuals. I agree as well. I think it shows the level audacity and arrogance the left has to even try and accomplish this - it presumes the popular vote will always go to the leftist. The first time all of their votes go to a Republican candidate they'll want to change the rules again. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The idiots espousing this fail to comprehend why the Electoral College exists in the first place, which was to prevent any one state or group of states becoming too influential in presidential elections. Were the popular vote rule in effect, the candidates would only campaign in areas with large and dense populations. So, farewell to any voice in the executive branch for states like Montana or South Dakota. You'd never see the candidates, nor would your issues. This is a trojan horse attack on our representative democracy, and if you follow the trail back, it leads right to George Soros. Things like this are why that individual should be banished from this country, and any wealth he transfers here ought to be confiscated and used to pay down the National Debt. He is a malign influence, and things like his Secretary of State program have clearly been used to undermine the rule of law in this nation. Al Franken is a Senator due in large part to Soro's use of money to influence the outcome of elections. Without Franken, there'd be no Obamacare. I think some of them do comprehend the purpose of the EC and seek to eliminate it for that purpose. They've already gone a long ways towards that end, making the election of the President not too far removed from a direct popular election. Having an EC was meant to do several things, and not allowing the most populous States to totally dominate the Presidential election was only one of them. The EC was never meant to have any tie to a "popular vote." For multiple elections there was not even a popular vote to tally, as Electors were either not directly elected or were elected, but ran in their own name, did not pladge their votes to anyone, and were chosen based on their qualities as individuals. I agree as well. I think it shows the level audacity and arrogance the left has to even try and accomplish this - it presumes the popular vote will always go to the leftist. The first time all of their votes go to a Republican candidate they'll want to change the rules again. I hope you're right about changing it back the first time it works in favor of a Republican. But changing it back will require repealing what they have enacted as law, I think. I do worry a bit about how many times it could work in their favor, before it works against them. It does not appear that it will be a factor in this election though. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: <snip>Quoted: <snip><snip> I hope you're right about changing it back the first time it works in favor of a Republican. But changing it back will require repealing what they have enacted as law, I think. I do worry a bit about how many times it could work in their favor, before it works against them. It does not appear that it will be a factor in this election though. I'm concerned that there are so many who are OK with this type of brazen intentional bypass around original intent of the EC, and the coordinated legislation between liberally-biased states. I've talked with many people who don't see the problem. And most weren't libs.  |