Electoral colleague is sucks !

[Missourian]

Thread title rocks!

 

[Bush92]

We do not need a national popular vote. Obama is set to add 6 million welfare Democrats to the voting roles. Most will go to solid blue states and live in large inner city areas. This will limit the impact of heir vote to those states and districts that Democrats are going to win anyway. Holder and Obma are shipping these people to red states without notification to the governors in order to attempt to sway elections toward Democrats. Very underhanded. But, Democrats and liberals hate America and want to destroy it through blatant cats of racism.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

. . . to ensure Mob Rule Prevails.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states. Only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote. Since then, state laws gave the people the right to vote for President in all 50 states and DC.

The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates. In the current presidential election system, 48 states award all of their electors to the winners of their state.

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored.
9 states determined the 2012 election.
10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now. They aren’t polled or visited. Candidates do not bother to advertise or organize in their state.
24 of the 27 lowest population states, that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.
4 out of 5 Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising.

The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome. The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob"

And it would allow the fraudsters in Cook County IL, and other Dem strongholds, the ability to steal a national election, instead of just local and state elections.

No thanks!

 

[Derideo_Te]

We do not need a national popular vote. Obama is set to add 6 million welfare Democrats to the voting roles. Most will go to solid blue states and live in large inner city areas. This will limit the impact of heir vote to those states and districts that Democrats are going to win anyway. Holder and Obma are shipping these people to red states without notification to the governors in order to attempt to sway elections toward Democrats. Very underhanded. But, Democrats and liberals hate America and want to destroy it through blatant cats of racism.

"blatant cats of racism"

Deceleration Alert!

[MENTION=44776]Statist[/MENTION]ikhengs [MENTION=41527]Pogo[/MENTION]

 

[mvymvy]

The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob"
. . .
And it would allow the fraudsters in Cook County IL, and other Dem strongholds, the ability to steal a national election, instead of just local and state elections.

. . .

The current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes maximizes the incentive and opportunity for fraud, mischief, coercion, intimidation, confusion, and voter suppression. A very few people can change the national outcome by adding, changing, or suppressing a small number of votes in one closely divided battleground state. With the current system all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who receives a bare plurality of the votes in each state. The sheer magnitude of the national popular vote number, compared to individual state vote totals, is much more robust against manipulation.

National Popular Vote would limit the benefits to be gained by fraud or voter suppression. One suppressed vote would be one less vote. One fraudulent vote would only win one vote in the return. In the current electoral system, one fraudulent vote could mean 55 electoral votes, or just enough electoral votes to win the presidency without having the most popular votes in the country.

The closest popular-vote election count over the last 130+ years of American history (in 1960), had a nationwide margin of more than 100,000 popular votes. The closest electoral-vote election in American history (in 2000) was determined by 537 votes, all in one state, when there was a lead of 537,179 (1,000 times more) popular votes nationwide.

For a national popular vote election to be as easy to switch as 2000, it would have to be two hundred times closer than the 1960 election--and, in popular-vote terms, forty times closer than 2000 itself.

Which system offers vote suppressors or fraudulent voters a better shot at success for a smaller effort?

 

[mvymvy]

. . .

Why I've never bothered to vote. Electoral college. . . .

A national vote could increase down-ballot turnout voters during presidential election years.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

National Popular Vote would give a voice to the minority party voters in each state. Now their votes are counted only for the candidate they did not vote for. Now they don't matter to their candidate. In 2012, 56,256,178 (44%) of the 128,954,498 voters had their vote diverted by the winner-take-all rule to a candidate they opposed (namely, their state’s first-place candidate).

And now votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning in a state are wasted and don't matter to candidates. Utah (5 electoral votes) alone generated a margin of 385,000 "wasted" votes for Bush in 2004. 8 small western states, with less than a third of California’s population, provided Bush with a bigger margin (1,283,076) than California provided Kerry (1,235,659).

In 2008, voter turnout in the then 15 battleground states averaged seven points higher than in the 35 non-battleground states.

In 2012, voter turnout was 11% higher in the 9 battleground states than in the remainder of the country.

If presidential campaigns polled, organized, visited, and appealed to more than the current 63,000,000 of 314,000,000 Americans, one would reasonably expect that voter turnout would rise in 80% of the country that is currently ignored by presidential campaigns.

 

[Picaro]

The USA is proud of their honest elections. But taking a better look, is it really so? The election campaigns of recent decade prove that the government almost never takes into consideration public opinion.
Why this or that candidate was chosen? Have you ever asked this question to yourself? I want turn you mind back to the elections of 2000 , where George Bush Jr. was 543816 votes behind his rival Albert Gore. Nevertheless, the first mentioned took office. Have you ever figured out the reason for? Electoral colleague , of course !
Some parties need help of this dishonest tool in case if "improper" candidate won more voices than the "desirable" one!

One of the major problems these days is that with computers it was recently possible to gerrymander safe districts with much greater accuracy, which in turn leads to more political polarization, while also allowing the wingnuts far greater control over their party primaries. There is no cross-aisle haggling as was the case in the past, so nothing gets done, by either party. I think the last time I checked less than 15% of seats in either House or Senate are up for grabs at any time, hence the need to appeal to a broader base of voters isn't necessary any more, at least re primaries.

 

[mvymvy]

. . . The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not subjective public opinion.

Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government, and the EC is the fulfillment of that guarantee.

In addition to being un-Constitutional, National referenda, including electing the president by popular vote, are unwarranted, unwise, and unnecessary.

As in virtually every other election in the country, the candidate with the most votes would win, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, decades AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "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 Electoral College is not "the fulfillment of that guarantee"
The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates.

A vote under National Popular Vote would not be a "National referenda."
A referendum is "a general vote by the electorate on a single political question that has been referred to them for a direct decision."
Election of the President is not a referendum.

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections.
We still would have 50 state elections.
It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College, using the "plenary" and "exclusive" constitutional authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes.
As in virtually every other election in the country, the candidate with the most votes would win.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

 

[mvymvy]

In 1969, The U.S. House of Representatives voted for a national popular vote by a 338–70 margin. It was endorsed by Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, and various members of Congress who later ran for Vice President and President such as then-Congressman George H.W. Bush, and then-Senator Bob Dole.

On February 12, 2014, the Oklahoma Senate passed the National Popular Vote bill by a 28–18 margin.

On March 25, in the New York Senate, Republicans supported the bill 27-2; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative Party by 26-2; The Conservative Party of New York endorsed the bill.
In the New York Assembly, Republicans supported the bill 21–18; Republicans endorsed by the Conservative party supported the bill 18–16.

In May 2011, Jason Cabel Roe, a lifelong conservative activist and professional political consultant wrote in “National Popular Vote is Good for Republicans:” "I strongly support National Popular Vote. It is good for Republicans, it is good for conservatives . . . , and it is good for America. National Popular Vote is not a grand conspiracy hatched by the Left to manipulate the election outcome.
It is a bipartisan effort of Republicans, Democrats, and Independents to allow every state – and every voter – to have a say in the selection of our President, and not just the 15 Battle Ground States [that then existed in 2011].

National Popular Vote is not a change that can be easily explained, nor the ramifications thought through in sound bites. It takes a keen political mind to understand just how much it can help . . . Republicans. . . . Opponents either have a knee-jerk reaction to the idea or don’t fully understand it. . . . We believe that the more exposure and discussion the reform has the more support that will build for it."

The National Advisory Board of National Popular Vote includes former Congressmen John Anderson (R–Illinois and later independent presidential candidate), John Buchanan (R–Alabama), Tom Campbell (R–California), and Tom Downey (D–New York), and former Senators Birch Bayh (D–Indiana), David Durenberger (R–Minnesota), and Jake Garn (R–Utah).

Supporters include former Senator Fred Thompson (R–TN), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), Congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO), and former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)

Saul Anuzis, former Chairman of the Michigan Republican Party for five years and a former candidate for chairman of the Republican National Committee, supports the National Popular Vote plan as the fairest way to make sure every vote matters, and also as a way to help Conservative Republican candidates. This is not a partisan issue and the NPV plan would not help either party over the other.

The Nebraska GOP State Chairman, Mark Fahleson,

Michael Long, chairman of the Conservative Party of New York State

Rich Bolen, a Constitutional scholar, attorney at law, and Republican Party Chairman for Lexington County, South Carolina, wrote:"A Conservative Case for National Popular Vote: Why I support a state-based plan to reform the Electoral College."

Some other supporters who wrote forewords to "Every Vote Equal: A State-Based Plan for Electing the President by National Popular Vote" .:: Every Vote Equal ::. include:

Laura Brod who served in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 2003 to 2010 and was the ranking Republican member of the Tax Committee. She was the Minnesota Public Sector Chair for ALEC (American Legislative Exchange Council) and active in the Council of State Governments.

James Brulte the California Republican Party chairman, who served as Republican Leader of the California State Assembly from 1992 to 1996, California State Senator from 1996 to 2004, and Senate Republican leader from 2000 to 2004.

Ray Haynes who served as the National Chairman of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) in 2000. He served in the California State Senate from 1994 to 2002 and was elected to the Assembly in 1992 and 2002

Dean Murray was a member of the New York State Assembly. He was a Tea Party organizer before being elected to the Assembly as a Republican, Conservative Party member in February 2010. He was described by Fox News as the first Tea Party candidate elected to office in the United States.

Thomas L. Pearce who served as a Michigan State Representative from 2005–2010 and was appointed Dean of the Republican Caucus. He has led several faith-based initiatives in Lansing.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

. . . The United States is a Constitutional Republic, not a democracy, whose citizens are subject solely to the rule of law, not subjective public opinion.

Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution guarantees the states a republican form of government, and the EC is the fulfillment of that guarantee.

In addition to being un-Constitutional, National referenda, including electing the president by popular vote, are unwarranted, unwise, and unnecessary.

As in virtually every other election in the country, the candidate with the most votes would win, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

The Founding Fathers in the Constitution did not require states to allow their citizens to vote for president, much less award all their electoral votes based upon the vote of their citizens.

The presidential election system we have today is not in the Constitution. State-by-state winner-take-all laws to award Electoral College votes, were eventually enacted by states, using their exclusive power to do so, decades AFTER the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. Now our current system can be changed by state laws again.

During the course of campaigns, candidates are educated and campaign about the local, regional, and state issues most important to the handful of battleground states they need to win. They take this knowledge and prioritization with them once they are elected. Candidates need to be educated and care about all of our states.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but later enacted by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state, ensures that the candidates, after the conventions, in 2012 did not reach out to about 80% of the states and their voters. 10 of the original 13 states are ignored now. Candidates had no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they were safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

80% of the states and people were just spectators to the presidential election. That's more than 85 million voters, more than 200 million Americans.

Policies important to the citizens of non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.

Since World War II, a shift of a few thousand votes in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 15 presidential elections

Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "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 Electoral College is not "the fulfillment of that guarantee"
The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates.

A vote under National Popular Vote would not be a "National referenda."
A referendum is "a general vote by the electorate on a single political question that has been referred to them for a direct decision."
Election of the President is not a referendum.

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections.
We still would have 50 state elections.
It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College, using the "plenary" and "exclusive" constitutional authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes.
As in virtually every other election in the country, the candidate with the most votes would win.

Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count.

When states with a combined total of at least 270 Electoral College votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ Electoral College votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.
National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with pure democracy. Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly. With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

You're confusing state and local elections with National elections, including presidential elections, where referenda and plebiscites are un-Constitutional.

The EC serves as the means by which the states participate in the process of electing a president in accordance with the election laws of each state, and respecting the states' right to a republican form of government as guaranteed by the Constitution.

In our Republic democracy is representative, not direct, and wisely so, as democracy is incapable of protecting the rights of individuals.

So too is it incapable of protecting the rights of the states.

 

[whitehall]

It only "sucks" when democrats lose.

 

[mvymvy]

You're confusing state and local elections with National elections, including presidential elections, where referenda and plebiscites are un-Constitutional.

The EC serves as the means by which the states participate in the process of electing a president in accordance with the election laws of each state, and respecting the states' right to a republican form of government as guaranteed by the Constitution.

In our Republic democracy is representative, not direct, and wisely so, as democracy is incapable of protecting the rights of individuals.

So too is it incapable of protecting the rights of the states.

I am not in the least confused.

National Popular Vote preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

We do and would vote state by state. All the votes cast in every state's individual election would be added together for the national total for each candidate and would contribute to the overall winner.

When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

The EC would still serve as the means by which the states participate in the process of electing a president in accordance with the election laws of each state.
The states' right to a republican form of government as guaranteed by the Constitution would not be in danger.

In our Republic democracy is and would be representative, not direct.

With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

 

[JoeB131]

Spell check is your friend

So is not posting crazy stuff.

The video claims that we "don't know who the electors are". Which is crap. We know exactly who the electors are. Both sides usually submit a list of electors for their candidate.

Usually, we find out that electors are party loyalists, so that we never have a situation of "Faithless electors' (The last case was an elector in 1976 who voted for Ronald Reagan to keep his name in the news after Ford lost.)

Now, there are a lot of good reasons why the electoral college is bad.

1) It allows for a situation where someone can win the presidency in spite of losing the popular vote. This has happened 4 times. 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. All of these presidents are basically rated among the worst in history.

2) It creates a situation where large states are disenfranchised and the election comes down to a few small states. In 2012, only about 12 of the fifty states were in contention. Of the five largest states- California, Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois, only Florida had a contest.

3) It makes it impossible for a Third Party to get any traction nationally. We always talk about how an election is a choice between the lesser of two evils, but part of the problem is that the electoral college makes it impossible for a third party to form. The Reform Party, the American Independent Party, the Progressive Party, all of these have a life cycle of about one or two election cycles before they vanish. At best, they give a voter permission to quit one party before joining the other.

4) It is not the Republican Party's friend right now. What I find amazing is that the GOP really gets hurt more by the Electoral College system, as the the Democrat starts out with a "Blue Wall" of 242 electoral votes. (States they've won in 6 of the last 6 elections.) The GOP has only 118 votes that they've won 6 for 6, and even if you want to take the more generous 4 for 4 vote (where you didn't have Ross Perot mucking up states like Montana) the best they can count on is 191.

yet the GOP screams the loudest whenever anyone suggests they get rid of it. Partially because of their cultist devotion to the Founding Fathers, (who scrapped their original scheme after four elections) partially because they aren't ready to admit what a huge honking mistake George W. Bush was.

 

[Idadunno]

A big problem with the electoral college is that the votes of citizens in many low population states count for more than the rest of the country. For example a vote in Wyoming counts almost 4 times more than a vote in California. This, of course, benefits the Republican party.

Wyoming counts as 3 votes, period.
Texas has more people, and more electoral votes, but those electoral votes are averaged out. Texas may have 1 electoral vote per 700,000 people, where Wyoming has 1 electoral vote per 100,000. This average does not give Wyoming more electoral votes--it gets 3 votes.
Electors are chosen by the party, but the official electors to vote for president depend on the popular vote of the state. For instance, each party chooses electors, and when vote numbers start coming in across the state, the winning party's electors become the electoral vote. However, that does not mean that the electors have to vote for the popular president. They can vote for the other guy if they so choose, which is why some candidates with the popular vote do not win the presidency.
Winner takes all makes larger states more important than smaller ones.
The only time small electoral states have real clout is if there is a tie of electoral votes in which each state gets one vote to pick the president.

The electoral vote is covered in Article II of the Constitution.

 

[Idadunno]

. . . Unable to agree on any particular method, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method for selecting presidential electors exclusively to the states by adopting the language contained in section 1 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution-- "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 Electoral College is not "the fulfillment of that guarantee"
The Electoral College is now the set of 538 dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates.

Article II clearly states: 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

This means that as a states' population grow, so does its representation. Considering the size of the US when the Constitution was ratified, the framers did hope that it would grow and left an opening for that growth. A representative per 1 million people, or a given standard for states with less than a million.
States have the right to regulate federal laws as long as they do not conflict with the Constitution. The people have the right to take each state before the Supreme Court and have those regulations ruled unconstitutional. I do not see much of that happening. The people can claim that winner take all is a violation of freedom of speech since it silences the voice of those under the 50% margin. The people also have the right to take before the Supreme Court the actions of electors not voting the popular choice candidate. The Constitution says the electors will do so, but it does not say that they have to. Clarity can be a good thing.

 

[mvymvy]

The people also have the right to take before the Supreme Court the actions of electors not voting the popular choice candidate. The Constitution says the electors will do so, but it does not say that they have to. Clarity can be a good thing.

The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

You're confusing state and local elections with National elections, including presidential elections, where referenda and plebiscites are un-Constitutional.

The EC serves as the means by which the states participate in the process of electing a president in accordance with the election laws of each state, and respecting the states' right to a republican form of government as guaranteed by the Constitution.

In our Republic democracy is representative, not direct, and wisely so, as democracy is incapable of protecting the rights of individuals.

So too is it incapable of protecting the rights of the states.

I am not in the least confused.

National Popular Vote preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

We do and would vote state by state. All the votes cast in every state's individual election would be added together for the national total for each candidate and would contribute to the overall winner.

When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

The EC would still serve as the means by which the states participate in the process of electing a president in accordance with the election laws of each state.
The states' right to a republican form of government as guaranteed by the Constitution would not be in danger.

In our Republic democracy is and would be representative, not direct.

With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

One can't have it both ways, the United States is either a Republic or a democracy, it can't be both.

In our Republic democracy is representative, not direct – subordinate to a republican form of government where citizens elect representatives – to state legislatures, to Congress, and to the EC – to express the people's will.

Again, this was very wise and appropriate on the part of the Framers pursuant to their desire to safeguard the civil liberties of citizens, where direct democracy is hostile to individual rights and contrary to the rule of law enshrined in the Constitution.

In essence you're advocating for a direct democracy 'exemption' solely with regard to electing a president in the context of our Republic, an 'exemption' which is unwarranted, unwise, and un-Constitutional.

 

[Picaro]

In any case, the U.S. election system is in need of major reforms. The Constitution, and the state governments themselves, were formed at a time when probably less than a thousand men controlled both the government and the economy, and the Constitution reflects that. It's no longer representative or even functional as a mechanism for government of a modern state. Another 'Constitutional Convention' is a long time overdue. It's a choice of either reform or slide into banana republic status and get overrun by dysfunction, even more endemic corruption, and permanent disintegration and oblivion.

 

[mvymvy]

You're confusing state and local elections with National elections, including presidential elections, where referenda and plebiscites are un-Constitutional.

The EC serves as the means by which the states participate in the process of electing a president in accordance with the election laws of each state, and respecting the states' right to a republican form of government as guaranteed by the Constitution.

In our Republic democracy is representative, not direct, and wisely so, as democracy is incapable of protecting the rights of individuals.

So too is it incapable of protecting the rights of the states.

I am not in the least confused.

National Popular Vote preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.

We do and would vote state by state. All the votes cast in every state's individual election would be added together for the national total for each candidate and would contribute to the overall winner.

When states with a combined total of at least 270 electoral votes enact the bill, the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the needed majority of 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. The bill would thus guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes and the majority of Electoral College votes.

The EC would still serve as the means by which the states participate in the process of electing a president in accordance with the election laws of each state.
The states' right to a republican form of government as guaranteed by the Constitution would not be in danger.

In our Republic democracy is and would be representative, not direct.

With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

The National Popular Vote bill concerns how votes are tallied, not how much power state governments possess relative to the national government. The powers of state governments are neither increased nor decreased based on whether presidential electors are selected along the state boundary lines, or national lines (as with the National Popular Vote).

One can't have it both ways, the United States is either a Republic or a democracy, it can't be both.

In our Republic democracy is representative, not direct – subordinate to a republican form of government where citizens elect representatives – to state legislatures, to Congress, and to the EC – to express the people's will.

Again, this was very wise and appropriate on the part of the Framers pursuant to their desire to safeguard the civil liberties of citizens, where direct democracy is hostile to individual rights and contrary to the rule of law enshrined in the Constitution.

In essence you're advocating for a direct democracy 'exemption' solely with regard to electing a president in the context of our Republic, an 'exemption' which is unwarranted, unwise, and un-Constitutional.

National Popular Vote is not advocating for direct democracy in any way, and would not result in direct democracy.

One more time:
The Republic is not in any danger from National Popular Vote.

National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with pure democracy.

Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.

With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.

National Popular Vote has nothing to do with whether the country has a "republican" form of government or is a "democracy."

In a republic, the citizens do not rule directly but, instead, elect officeholders to represent them and conduct the business of government in the periods between elections.
A "republican" form of government means that the voters do not make laws themselves but, instead, delegate the job to periodically elected officials (Congressmen, Senators, and the President). The United States has a republican form of government regardless of whether popular votes for presidential electors are tallied at the state-level (as has been the case in 48 states) or at 50-state-level (as with the National Popular Vote bill).

 

[Antares]

Al Gore wins his HOME STATE and he is President, quit whining.