Why Left Wingers HATE the Electoral College !!!

[Dragon]

I find it amusing that certain dickwads want to call use of the ignore list "cowardly." As if there were anything happening on an Internet discussion board to be afraid of, or that requires courage to face. Get real.

It's more like wearing boots when walking through a cow pasture. It's nothing more than filtering out something annoying and noxious so that it doesn't detract from the experience of engaging in discussion with people who are reasonably civilized about it.

We don't have moderators that boot people for being rude, and after seeing that abused on other sites I'm not an advocate of changing that. But nonetheless, I have better things to do with my time than engage in juvenile verbal spitwad fights with people who never grew up. And that's what the ignore list is for.

 

[mvymvy]

Why the Electoral College?

by P. Andrew Sandlin

In this atmosphere, the Founders were concerned that a popular regional candidate in a populous area may be able to garner enough votes to win the election, particularly if several other candidates divided the balance of the vote. This regionally popular first candidate would not likely have the interests of the entire number of states – the nation itself – at heart. If a candidate needed to win only the popular vote, it would possible for him to be elected President without winning a majority of anything. He would not have been elected on the basis of any sort of consensus of the states, but simply on his popularity in a particular state or in two or three heavily populated areas.

Article 2 of the Constitution and its 12th Amendment stipulate that the President is chosen by electors, who are themselves chosen by the state, "in such manner as the legislature thereof may direct … equal to the whole number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress." This arrangement obliges candidates to make a much wider appeal than they would if they simply were required to win the popular national election.

The electoral college is a bulwark of states’ rights yet, perhaps paradoxically, it also tends to foster the cohesiveness of the entire nation. It makes it difficult for more populous urban states, or states with larger populations, like New York, Florida, and California, to gain an unfair advantage over less urban and populous states like North Dakota, Wyoming, and Montana.

To eliminate the electoral college would be essentially to eliminate the role of states in presidential elections. It would comprehensively nationalize the selection and insinuate that states as such have no interest in national presidential politics. For all practical purposes, it would remove the borders between states and transform the United States of America into the united people of America.

.

The current state-by-state winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but since enacted by 48 states), ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, will not reach out to about 76% of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind.

Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only the current handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. There is no incentive for them to bother to care about the majority of states where they are hopelessly behind or safely ahead to win. 9 of the original 13 states are considered “fly-over” now. In the 2012 election, pundits and campaign operatives agree already, that, at most, only 12 states and their voters will matter. They will decide the election. None of the 10 most rural states will matter, as usual. About 76% of the country will be ignored --including 19 of the 22 lowest population and medium-small states, and 17 medium and big states like CA, GA, NY, and TX. This will be more obscene than the 2008 campaign, when candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Over half (57%) of the events were in just 4 states (OH, FL, PA, and VA). In 2004, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their money and campaign visits in 5 states; over 80% in 9 states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states.

More than 2/3rds of the states and people have been merely spectators to presidential elections. They have no influence. That's more than 85 million voters ignored. When and where voters are ignored, then so are the issues they care about most.

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

The number and population of battleground states is shrinking as the U.S. population grows.

Because of the state-by-state winner-take-all electoral votes laws in 48 states, a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide. This has occurred in 4 of the nation's 56 (1 in 14 = 7%) presidential elections. The precariousness of the current state-by-state winner-take-all system is highlighted by the fact that a shift of a few thousand voters in one or two states would have elected the second-place candidate in 4 of the 13 presidential elections since World War II. Near misses are now frequently common. There have been 6 consecutive non-landslide presidential elections (1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, and 2008). A shift of 60,000 voters in Ohio in 2004 would have defeated President Bush despite his nationwide lead of over 3 million votes.

With the current state-by-state winner-take-all system of awarding electoral votes, it could only take winning a bare plurality of popular votes in the 11 most populous states, containing 56% of the population of the United States, for a candidate to win the Presidency -- that is, a mere 26% of the nation's votes.

With the Electoral College, and federalism, the Founding Fathers meant to empower the states to pursue their own interest within the confines of the Constitution. The National Popular Vote is an exercise of that power, not an attack upon it.

The Electoral College is now the set of dedicated party activists who vote as rubberstamps for presidential candidates.

The National Popular Vote bill preserves the Electoral College and state control of elections. It changes the way electoral votes are awarded in the Electoral College. It assures that every vote 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.

Under National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would be included in the state counts and national count. The candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC would get the 270+ electoral votes from the enacting states. That majority of electoral votes guarantees the candidate with the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC wins the presidency.

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.

And votes, beyond the one needed to get the most votes in the state, for winning candidates 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).

With National Popular Vote, every vote, everywhere would be counted equally for, and directly assist, the candidate for whom it was cast.

Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in the current handful of swing states. The political reality would be that when every vote is equal, the campaign must be run in every part of the country.

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

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national 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).

 

[JakeStarkey]

I have a number on ignore, and I have seen no reason in indirect postings to remove them. A few I have removed from ignore as they have acted more adult and maturely here. I will never put Uncensored or Daveman or BigReb on ignore. Their stupidities and willingness to let America fail are so apparent to those with brains that they convert no one, and drive others to the responsible right, which is far left of them.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Why the Electoral College?

by P. Andrew Sandlin

SNIP

Federalism concerns the allocation of power between state governments and the national 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).

Absolute balderdash and contributes to fail for the National Popular Vote.

 

[Sallow]

Obama won't lose.

You can bank on that.

Obama will lose.

You better get sack cloth and ashes now, so that your wailing and gnashing of teeth may commence, come November.

You guys are going to run Romney. McCain beat Romney.

Obama beat McCain.

Sucks to be you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

NBO will lose us the election.

Yes.

It loses the election for Obama, and you.

That's the point, fakey jake.

What a stupid suggestion. We unify behind a modern GOP candidate that can take him on the issues, not the personalities. If we do personalities, we lose.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You guys are going to run Romney. McCain beat Romney.

Obama beat McCain.

Sucks to be you.

Well, good luck with that, Shallow....

 

[JakeStarkey]

NBO will lose us the election.

Yes.

It loses the election for Obama, and you.

That's the point, fakey jake.

What a stupid suggestion. We unify behind a modern GOP candidate that can take him on the issues, not the personalities. If we do personalities, we lose.

You don't have the power to tell us how to do this election and beat Obama, Uncensored. You are miniscule faction far to the right. We will beat Obama with the right candidate. The slogan NBO is stupid and ignorant in that it is self-defeating. We run on personalities, we lose to Obama. Is that your desire?

 

[Uncensored2008]

You don't have the power to tell us how to do this election and beat Obama, Uncensored. You are miniscule faction far to the right. We will beat Obama with the right candidate. The slogan NBO is stupid and ignorant in that it is self-defeating. We run on personalities, we lose to Obama. Is that your desire?

No doubt you'll go cast 7 or 8 votes for Obama on election day, while singing "Onward Acorn Soldiers," but it won't be enough to put him in for another 4 years.

Feel the horror...

 

[JakeStarkey]

This is why I don't put you on ignore. Folks who can think realize you are a wack.

You will just to have to continue to let the butt hurt flow through you for four years when we have elected Romney then freeze you crazies out.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Ignore? Who knew? And who cares?

Ignore is for cowards.

Oh, I ignore 90% of the idiocy you post, but I've never put you on ignore - and never will.

This fact is simple: the Santorums and the Palins can never draw middle America, and without those scores of millions of vote, the GOP can't win the Presidency.

Either we GOP learn to work together, or we don't deserve to win.


__________________
Mitt Romney's Greatest hits.

Yawn...

The GOP wins by UNIFYING behind "Not Obama."

Wins what?

The country likes Obama..with the exception of you guys..and you guys are in the minority.

Which is why you guys are so desperate to suppress the vote.

The majority of United States citizens are not you guys.

You can go believing that if it makes you feel better.
The poll numbers and man on the street interviews say otherwise.
Which country?

 

[Dragon]

You can go believing that if it makes you feel better.
The poll numbers and man on the street interviews say otherwise.

No, actually, they don't.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Along with wishing the 17th amendment was repealed, Conservatives LOVE the Electoral College.

Seems they don't want democracy ANYWHERE near the United States of America.

You're right, we dont, democracy is the tyranny of the many imposed on the few.

Nice catch phrase..but democracy is not tyranny.

In fact tyranny is quite the opposite. The few. Or the one. Imposing their will or power on the many.

Which is the environment conservatives want. Tyranny, Monarchy, Theocracy, Aristocracy and Dictatorship. That's your meat bub.

Absolute democracy or 'pure' democracy is tyrannical in that half plus one person can lord over the remainder.
That is why we have a representative republic here.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Ignore is for cowards.

Oh, I ignore 90% of the idiocy you post, but I've never put you on ignore - and never will.




Yawn...

The GOP wins by UNIFYING behind "Not Obama."

Wins what?

The country likes Obama..with the exception of you guys..and you guys are in the minority.

Which is why you guys are so desperate to suppress the vote.

The majority of United States citizens are not you guys.

You can go believing that if it makes you feel better.
The poll numbers and man on the street interviews say otherwise.
Which country?

No, they don't. We Republicans need the great center rather than the wacks to the far, far right.

 

[JoeB131]

Sorry, Kim Jong Il died...


Sit it out? You're campaigning for Obama every day.


Romney is "not Obama," So is Santorum.

Come November, that's all that matters.

NOt really.

If that were the case, if being "Not the Current guy" was enough to get you over the finish line, then we'd be at the end of President Kerry's second term right now. Hate doesn't win elections.

I think I could support Santorum, he gets working people and their problems. Romney doesn't.

Now, Obama's got the easy job. All he has to do is get 94% of the people who voted for him last time to do so again. That's really not that hard of a job. Unless there is a third party dividing the base, if you got them the first time, you got them the second time. This is why Bush-43, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Ike all increased their voter totals. They got everyone to come back and then they found some more. Carter lost votes to Anderson and Bush-41 to Ross Perot. That's why they lost.

Romney's got a much harder job. First, he has to get everyone who voted for McCain last time to vote for him this time. Really a difficult task because a lot of people voted for Mccain because he wasn't Romney. He then has to convice at least 5 million people who voted for Obama last time to vote for him. Again. Difficult job.

Human nature is to NOT admit when you made a mistake. There might be Obama Supporters out there that who are regretting their decision, but they aren't going to admit they goofed.

In 2016, their egos won't be so much on the line, so the GOP might have a chance then.

 

[JoeB131]

NBO will lose us the election. What a stupid suggestion. We unify behind a modern GOP candidate that can take him on the issues, not the personalities. If we do personalities, we lose.

Well, that's right, because Romney doesn't have a personality.

Frankly, I don't see how he beats Obama on the issues, either. The economy probably won't be one, and Romney has been on every side of every issue.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Romney will do well enough, watch, JoeB, and be ready to weep.

 

[JoeB131]

Romney will do well enough, watch, JoeB, and be ready to weep.

Not really.

Frankly, the only people I've talked IRL to who are thrilled with Romney are the business owners. No one else is.

Even on this board, which skews kind of rightish, no great enthusiasm for the guy. An argument seems to be more about why Gingirch/Santorum/Perry suck than why Romney is good.

In the primaries, he's gotten less votes in most of the states he's run in- even ones he won. SO there's less enthusiasm for him this time than there was in 2008.

And this is before Obama breaks out his 1 billion dollar buzzsaw on the guy. For the moment, he's happy to watch him try to get to the right of Santorum and fail.

 

[daveman]

You want the GOP to become a liberal party.

No, I want it to become a conservative party:

con·serv·a·tive
   [kuhn-sur-vuh-tiv]
adjective
1.
disposed to preserve existing conditions, institutions, etc., or to restore traditional ones, and to limit change.
2.
cautiously moderate or purposefully low: a conservative estimate.
3.
traditional in style or manner; avoiding novelty or showiness: conservative suit.

Then why do you insist they hold liberal views?

 

[Uncensored2008]

NOt really.

If that were the case, if being "Not the Current guy" was enough to get you over the finish line, then we'd be at the end of President Kerry's second term right now. Hate doesn't win elections.

It did in 2008.

And really, hate is all you leftists have.

I think I could support Santorum,

You're a communist, Santorum opposes everything you stand for.

he gets working people and their problems. Romney doesn't.

Romney is to the left of Santorum, you are irrational.

Look, you're a lefty troll thinking that Republicans are so stupid that if a couple of leftwingers like you and fakey jake spew Marxism, the conservatives will think "golly gee, that thar uthor Reeepubleecan dun thanx that gubmint cuntrol orver everything is gud policee, sew Iz jesa gunna promotes its too..."

Now, Obama's got the easy job. All he has to do is get 94% of the people who voted for him last time to do so again.

That's not so easy, those who were fooled in 2008 won't be eager to be fooled again.

That's really not that hard of a job. Unless there is a third party dividing the base, if you got them the first time, you got them the second time. This is why Bush-43, Clinton, Reagan, Nixon, Ike all increased their voter totals. They got everyone to come back and then they found some more. Carter lost votes to Anderson and Bush-41 to Ross Perot. That's why they lost.

Romney's got a much harder job. First, he has to get everyone who voted for McCain last time to vote for him this time. Really a difficult task because a lot of people voted for Mccain because he wasn't Romney. He then has to convice at least 5 million people who voted for Obama last time to vote for him. Again. Difficult job.

Human nature is to NOT admit when you made a mistake. There might be Obama Supporters out there that who are regretting their decision, but they aren't going to admit they goofed.

In 2016, their egos won't be so much on the line, so the GOP might have a chance then.

Yep, you're convinced that Obama's Reich will last a thousand years...