Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Blatantly Unconstitutional.
Gunny, you are crossing your own wires (it's democratic, it's not democratic), so your engine refuses to start.
Make up your mind, old son.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Massachusetts (the 13th largest population state, with 12 electoral college votes) and 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states (with less than 7 electoral college votes) were not among them. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
The Electoral College should be done away with, but by the Congress, not the states.
If we went strictly to a popular vote then they'd be concentrating all of their time on the big cities and ignore the rest of the country so either way you have a section of the electorate getting ignored.
What is advantageous about the electoral college is that it gives the smallest states who would get ignored in just about any system a bit more of a voice by guaranteeing them at least three electoral votes, even if they only have the population for one.
The electoral college is not undemocratic you dumb ass. It provides an equal footing for the Individual States.
We get a vote for President.
Now we have one State that has invalidated its entire State's vote. It has told all politicians running for President, do not bother running here, worry about the other States. Waste no money on us, we are irrelevant. Our input is meaningless, our desires pointless, our vote worthless.
In fact what the law says is that the State need not even hold an election, which IS unconstitutional, by the way.
And I would suggest that Constitutional Scholars should check that out. By invalidating the election process they DENY their citizens a Republican form of Government. And that IS in the Constitution.
You have made the claim that the electoral process is not Democratic, prove it.
The electoral college is not undemocratic you dumb ass. It provides an equal footing for the Individual States.
Electoral votes are apportioned to states by population (i.e. number of representatives + 2). Granted, this distorts things a bit for small states but it hardly provides an "equal footing" betwen states.
We get a vote for President.
No, you don't. That's the point. The concept is inherently undemocratic because the Presidency is not a democratically elected office in the United States. Individual states have decided to award electoral votes according to popular vote totals in the state (some, like Nebraska, even going so far as to do it by individual Congressional district) but that's not an idea inherent to the original concept. In fact, it's somewhat of a perversion of the original system in that it's a weak attempt to democratize an inherently undemocratic system.
In the current system, that would be most states. Surely you've heard of "battleground" states in American presidential elections. State popular vote margins (and, by extension, national margins) mean nothing in our system (outside of Nebraska and Maine)--since states are winner-take-all, any lead that seems insurmountable given the candidate's resources is effectively irrelevant that electoral cycle. Thus candidates don't bother running in many states and they do decide to worry about other states.
For the Presidency? No, that's not unconstitutional. Popular elections don't determine who becomes President under the Constitution. Unless a state decides to base its electoral vote decision on the state's popular vote. The fact that they all do that today doesn't mean it's a feature built into the Constitution. It certainly is not. All a state is Constitutionally bound to do is appoint electors who then cast their votes for a candidate.
And I would suggest that Constitutional Scholars should check that out. By invalidating the election process they DENY their citizens a Republican form of Government. And that IS in the Constitution.
Are you under the impression that the U.S. President is a state official? Otherwise I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.
You have made the claim that the electoral process is not Democratic, prove it.
To reiterate a somewhat key point: the Presidency is not a democratically elected position in our government. The Electoral College is the instrument of this. Ergo...
You have utterly failed to even provide a single example of why it is not.
... determines what vote our State will cast ...
“A survey of 800 Massachusetts voters conducted on May 23-24, 2010 showed 72% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.
Voters were asked
‘How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?’
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 86% among Democrats, 54% among Republicans, and 68% among others. By gender, support was 85% among women and 60% among men. By age, support was 85% among 18-29 year olds, 75% among 30-45 year olds, 69% among 46-65 year olds, and 72% for those older than 65.
Massachusetts voters were also asked a 3-way question:
‘Do you prefer a system where the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states on a nationwide basis is elected President, or one like the one used in Nebraska and Maine where electoral voters are dispensed by Congressional district, or one in which all of the state’s electoral votes would be given to the statewide winner?’
The results of this three-way question were that 68% favored a national popular vote, 16% favored awarding its electoral votes by congressional district, and 16% favored the existing statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of a states electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
Exactly why we're not a democracy.72% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.
So forget the states, candidates should simply worry about a few dozen major cities and bingo, their in. I don't think so........
Exactly why we're not a democracy.72% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.
I'm sure that 90% of Americans favor more 3-day weekends.
That's why our Constitutional Republic wasn't formed on the precept of mob rule.
A survey of 800 Massachusetts voters conducted on May 23-24, 2010 showed 72% overall support for the idea that the President of the United States should be the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.
Voters were asked
How do you think we should elect the President: Should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?
By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote was 86% among Democrats, 54% among Republicans, and 68% among others. By gender, support was 85% among women and 60% among men. By age, support was 85% among 18-29 year olds, 75% among 30-45 year olds, 69% among 46-65 year olds, and 72% for those older than 65.
Massachusetts voters were also asked a 3-way question:
Do you prefer a system where the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states on a nationwide basis is elected President, or one like the one used in Nebraska and Maine where electoral voters are dispensed by Congressional district, or one in which all of the states electoral votes would be given to the statewide winner?
The results of this three-way question were that 68% favored a national popular vote, 16% favored awarding its electoral votes by congressional district, and 16% favored the existing statewide winner-take-all system (i.e., awarding all of a states electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most votes statewide).
The question should have been qualified by saying, even if that means It may not be the Candidate the People of Mass voted for. I mean those people do realize the only time that law would ever really have any effect is in a case where Mass voted for the guy who Lost the National Popular vote right.
thats because we dont hold a "national" electionBy throwing their 12 electorial votes to the majority it franchises all those voters who never had a say in the Presidential election, namely the federal territories like the US Virgin islanders. It would make your vote count. It is time to elect the President with popular vote, not some process that makes my vote count for less than someones vote in Maryland. The way the process is now not all votes are equal. Common sense folks!
