National Popluar Vote??

[NRiderUSA]

Anyone else heard about the National Popular Vote?

Im just starting to check it out but so far what I'm seeing it doesnt look like it could work.

If popular vote worked (from examples of from the same group(s)) the gay marriage being voted on would have been law... By popular vote.
Bama Care couldnt pass by popular vote.
Arizona wouldnt be sued by popular vote....

and so on with endless examples in the last few years that popular vote was overturned because it went against something or other.

They have statistics that (If true everywhere) shows the popular view is being ignored.

So which is it to be... or is there a "We can choose where it applies or no" clause in it too?

So far it looks like the states supporting and pushing for it are all on the left side of the room....and very very populated with already "Big" electorial college votes.

Guess its like a lot of other things going on... dont need to understand if it will work or not its going to happen anyway.....and find out about the small print in it.

If they cant win they will change the rules....

If they concentrated the kind of energy they put into changing the consitution into jobs and homeless and food..... imagine what they could accomplish and get re-elected on their merit and wouldnt have to find around losing.

[ridemslow]

This is going to be a popular and interseting thread......... That's politics my friend.

[NRiderUSA]

Yep.... but in a new and improved version it would seem.

[Sin City Stan]

If by Popular vote you mean eliminating the Electoral College then I would have to say I disagree.

The Electroral Collage gaurantees a two party system. You may think a two party system is bad. If so, I suggest you look into how elections are run in, say Italy for instance. You have up tp 17 "parties", each trying to garner maybe 20-25% of the vote becuase that's all it takes to win. It's chaos.

In the last two decades a third party candidate has caused the ultimate Presidential winner not to have the majority of the vote. Just think if the USA fractured into 5, 6 maybe 10 mediocre "parties" vying for your vote. Now multiply that across Congress and the Senate. Brings a whole new meeting to the phrase "He's not my President.".

[NRiderUSA]

Well that explains it better than I understood, all I heard was a little snippet on the radio and was trying to figure it out.
They called it "Popular Vote" and it was referenced to the Electorial College somehow to at least the popular vote would determine who got the electorial vote.

Mass just passed it I think is what I heard along with 11 other states looking to do the same thing.

[glwilson]

Originally Posted by Sin City Stan

If by Popular vote you mean eliminating the Electoral College then I would have to say I disagree.

The Electroral Collage gaurantees a two party system. You may think a two party system is bad. If so, I suggest you look into how elections are run in, say Italy for instance. You have up tp 17 "parties", each trying to garner maybe 20-25% of the vote becuase that's all it takes to win. It's chaos.

In the last two decades a third party candidate has caused the ultimate Presidential winner not to have the majority of the vote. Just think if the USA fractured into 5, 6 maybe 10 mediocre "parties" vying for your vote. Now multiply that across Congress and the Senate. Brings a whole new meeting to the phrase "He's not my President.".

In addition... the purpose of the electoral voting process is to avoid highly populated areas from controling the elections over "less-populated" areas.

In other words... states with more people... i.e., New York; could in effect control who your president is -- whereby Nebraska, Wyoming, and other smaller populated states would not have any say so.

Thus; the politicians would only cater-to, and campaign to the large populated areas... ...not a good thing at all.

So, while every election brings up the idea of eliminating the EC... essentially that would be a huge mistake.

[NRiderUSA]

"In other words... states with more people... i.e., New York; could in effect control who your president is -- whereby Nebraska, Wyoming, and other smaller populated states would not have any say so.

Thus; the politicians would only cater-to, and campaign to the large populated areas... ...not a good thing at all.

So, while every election brings up the idea of eliminating the EC... essentially that would be a huge mistake."


Hmmmmmmmmm....... makes you kind of think about it in a different light on what they are up to pushing for it???
Call me a skeptic..... I dont trust anyone or anything that is trying to change our foundation at the root levels....

Also as a question, wouldnt the states trying to change the electorial vote to a popular vote be doing the same thing Arizona is accused of? Is that like taking power the feds already have?

[AlabamaNomadRider]

The states with large populations have the most electoral votes and do control who wins the presidential election.

What I would like to see and I knowww I will get a lot of objections but I would like to see a democratic and republican congressman for each district. The same for the senate. That way you would have equal numbers of democrats and republicans in office and maybe the sons of b--ch-s could quit their fighting and do what is right for the country. I am just tired of seeing them look out for the party and to hell with the country.

[NRiderUSA]

I agree with you Alabama.... even further I would like to see a politician elected that realizes he is the employee and we are the employer..... not the pres, not his party.... US!!

[NRiderUSA]

Critics argue the Electoral College is inherently undemocratic and gives certain swing states disproportionate influence in selecting the President and Vice President.

Proponents argue that the Electoral College is an important and distinguishing feature of federalism in the United States and protects the rights of smaller states.

Proponents of the Electoral College claim that adoption of the popular vote would simply shift the disproportionate focus to large cities at the expense of rural areas.[54] Candidates might also be inclined to campaign hardest in their base areas to maximize turnout among core supporters, and ignore more closely divided parts of the country

California, Texas, and New York, in spite of having the largest populations, have in recent elections been considered safe for a particular party (Democratic for California and New York; Republican for Texas), and therefore candidates typically devote relatively few resources, in both time and money, to such states

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elector...United_States)

[macmac]

This is NH in a nut shell. The city folks have taken over from the rural folks because there are more city folks now than rural. NH is a conservitive state lead by librals. In the last 20 years cost of living has gone out of sight and property taxes prove it.

For many years NH had a balanced buget, no more, we are deep in debt, but Uncle is sure to fix that with hot top right over all the problems both real and imagined.

Spending with what we dn't have to prosperity. Gotta love that, and i can't wait for my turn.

[brote]

I believe the MA just passed a law that will divide their Electoral College votes by the popular vote....... This sure sounds like a nightmare filled with the possibility of ACORN corruption.

[tombstone]

They still think we are a democracy, we are not, we are a republic....if, as Benjamin Franklin said, "...we can keep it."