MD to drop out of Electoral College?

[Ernie S.]

In fact, among the 13 original states, circa 1787, the greatest population difference from state to state was an 10:1 ratio between Virginia and Delaware.

United States Senate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

>12 to one as of the first census in 1790. By your date of 1787 Tennessee has become the 16th state and the population ratio was 21:1 (VA vs TN)

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Thats what the Founders thought. History demonstrates they were correct in their analysis.

The Founders didn't have state vs state population ratios of 67:1 (California/Wyoming).

Which means, by the way, that every voter in Montana has 3 times as much representation in both Congress and the Electoral College, as California Voters.

I very much doubt the Founding fathers had that in mind at all.

I believe they did. In 1790, Virginia had 21 times the population of Tennessee.

See, when you have a total misinformation about our Founding, when you're a complete fucking ignoramus you can say things like, "I very much doubt the Founding fathers had that in mind at all"

 

[Ernie S.]

Some easy reading...

The Electoral College - Pros and Cons

What Are the Arguments Made in Favor--And Against--the Electoral College?

Just curious, ever had a thought of your own?

Independent thought is a Conservative concept so, no.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It's a movement in a whole lot of states at the moment. Basically, state's invoking their right to chose electorates by a method of their own choosing - in this case, by nationwide popular vote.

And I hope and pray every libtard state does exactly that, making themselves completely irrelevant in the electoral college and they are too stupid to figure it out.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The electoral college's time has long past and we should get rid of it and follow the will of the people.

So you support Prop 8?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Wow, so, not only should we make sure that the presidential election creates millions of disenfranchised voters, but we should also make sure that Senators are appointed instead of elected?

And this, in your opinion, would allow for more power to the individual?

Have you read any George Orwell?

Have you read an American history book?

 

[DiamondDave]

GALLUP: Americans Would Swap Electoral College for Popular Vote

by Lydia Saad

PRINCETON, NJ -- Nearly 11 years after the 2000 presidential election brought the idiosyncrasies of the United States' Electoral College into full view, 62% of Americans say they would amend the U.S. Constitution to replace that system for electing presidents with a popular vote system. Barely a third, 35%, say they would keep the Electoral College.

Gallup's initial measure of support for the Electoral College with this wording was conducted in the first few days after the 2000 presidential election in which the winner remained undeclared pending a recount in Florida. At that time, it was already clear that Democratic candidate Al Gore had won the national popular vote over Republican George W. Bush, but that the winner of the election would be the one who received Florida's 25 Electoral College votes.

During this period, Democrats were much more likely than Republicans to favor replacing the Electoral College system with a popular vote system. In a Gallup poll conducted Dec. 15-17 -- shortly after the Dec. 12 Supreme Court decision that ended the Florida recount, thereby deciding the election in Bush's favor -- 75% of Democrats said they would amend the Constitution so that the candidate who receives the most votes nationwide wins. By contrast, 56% of Republicans favored keeping the Electoral College, while 41% favored replacing it with a popular vote system.

Republicans have grown somewhat more amenable to adopting a popular vote system over the past decade. Now, for the first time since 2000, the majority of Republicans favor it. Independents are not quite as supportive as Democrats of the popular vote system, but the majority of them have consistently favored it.

Notably, in November 1980, when 67% of Americans, overall, said they approved of an amendment that would change the electoral system, Gallup found little partisan disagreement. Support was 62% among Republicans, 66% among Democrats, and 73% among independents. This suggests that the partisan results seen more recently may result from the political dynamic of the 2000 election, in which the Republican candidate benefited from the Electoral College system at the Democrat's expense.

Bottom Line

With 62% of Americans today in favor of abolishing the Electoral College, Americans show relatively little attachment to this unique invention of the country's Founding Fathers. The system was devised as a compromise between those who wanted Congress to select the president and those who favored election by the people, and it has resulted in a highly state-based approach to presidential campaigning.

Those who advocate abolishing the Electoral College often do so on the basis that the system puts undue emphasis on a small number of swing states. Whether Americans as a whole are concerned about that byproduct is unclear. However, they broadly agree that the country should adopt a system in which the popular vote prevails. While Republicans are less supportive of this than Democrats, 11 years after the 2000 election politicized the issue, the majority of Republicans once again favor the change.

Americans Would Swap Electoral College for Popular Vote

The only reason we have an electoral college is the founding fathers didn't trust us to elect the president. Which is understandable because they both yearned for democracy but they were afraid of it. The electoral college's time has long past and we should get rid of it and follow the will of the people.

And you all continually forget that the purpose was to give a voice to the smaller states... you know... the very states that give the power to the federal government thru the constitution.... their voices as states are indeed important

 

[American Horse]

It's a movement in a whole lot of states at the moment. Basically, state's invoking their right to chose electorates by a method of their own choosing - in this case, by nationwide popular vote.

It would eliminate the electoral imbalance enjoyed by small-population states. You want your vote to count the most, move to Wyoming. Second choice, D.C.

Just curious; since DC doesn't have any senators to give weight to their vote, how does that work for them?

 

[Inthemiddle]

most people in this country are not educated with the electoral college.....fact

Perhaps. But what does that matter? What is the objection to relying on a popular vote for the Presidency?

 

[Inthemiddle]

An argument could be made that this is large scale disenfranchisement.

No, no, no, NO! How the Hell can a popular vote be disenfranchisement?

 

[DiamondDave]

most people in this country are not educated with the electoral college.....fact

Perhaps. But what does that matter? What is the objection to relying on a popular vote for the Presidency?

To keep the 3 branches of government chosen in 3 different ways... helping to ensure balance of power...

To also have ALL the states, you know the things that give the federal government its power, have their voices heard and not washed out in a direct popular vote election

We have a branch of government chosen by the popular vote... and that is the legislative

 

[Inthemiddle]

The better and more pragmatic idea is to make it to where you have to win both the Electoral votes AND the popular vote.

WTF??? That's what you consider pragmatic? An even more complicated system that will probably end up with the SCOTUS appointing the President every 4 years?

 

[Oldstyle]

So basically, progressives want to change a system that has worked well for several hundred years...because they think they might lose a race because of the electoral college? The Founding Fathers were actually rather intelligent about how they set up our governing system. The same reasons they saw the wisdom of not allowing big States to dominate small ones still exist. So change things at your own peril, Kiddies. Just remember that it's usually harder to get a genie back in the bottle than it is to let one free.

 

[Flopper]

The better and more pragmatic idea is to make it to where you have to win both the Electoral votes AND the popular vote.

Interesting idea, but why would that be better than a simple popular vote? If you had both, then you would have the problem of winning one and losing the other.

 

[grunt11b]

It's a movement in a whole lot of states at the moment. Basically, state's invoking their right to chose electorates by a method of their own choosing - in this case, by nationwide popular vote.

...and it unconstitutional

Since when was the last time someone on the left abided by that old thing?

 

[grunt11b]

It's a movement in a whole lot of states at the moment. Basically, state's invoking their right to chose electorates by a method of their own choosing - in this case, by nationwide popular vote.

It would eliminate the electoral imbalance enjoyed by small-population states. You want your vote to count the most, move to Wyoming. Second choice, D.C.

I wouldn't recommend DC, it's a shit hole and you can't even carry a firearm to protect yourself in one of the most crime ridden places of America.

 

[grunt11b]

Wow. Winning an election by getting the most votes. How novel!

Idiot...

Has NOTHING to do with how the state votes, according to the proposal... If you could comprehend, you might catch that

And there is good reason, and it has been explained many times, why we have differing ways for obtaining our government officals in each branch of the government... it is a GOOD thing that not all offices are chosen by direct popular vote elections

That "good" reason would be..that the majority of people in this country are not the conservative corporate zombies you think they are..

The Electoral College is antiquated and designed to keep white landed gentry in power.

Simple as that.

There it is folks! It was only a matter of time.

 

[Oldstyle]

Thats what the Founders thought. History demonstrates they were correct in their analysis.

The Founders didn't have state vs state population ratios of 67:1 (California/Wyoming).

Which means, by the way, that every voter in Montana has 3 times as much representation in both Congress and the Electoral College, as California Voters.

I very much doubt the Founding fathers had that in mind at all.

Hmmmm...since the people in Montana have about 3 times as much common sense as the people in California, that seems to be about right.

How about we start up a new system where if you've run your State into the ground like California...you're not allowed to vote in national elections? When you straighten out your own mess...then you're allowed to influence the rest of the country? Seems fair...right?

 

[grunt11b]

The Electoral College is antiquated and designed to keep white landed gentry in power.

What is exactly is your evidence of this?

He has none, it's more of this than anything else.

 

[Flopper]

So basically, progressives want to change a system that has worked well for several hundred years...because they think they might lose a race because of the electoral college? The Founding Fathers were actually rather intelligent about how they set up our governing system. The same reasons they saw the wisdom of not allowing big States to dominate small ones still exist. So change things at your own peril, Kiddies. Just remember that it's usually harder to get a genie back in the bottle than it is to let one free.

On the other hand, why should my vote for president have less impact because I live in a large state?