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.
However, if you do away with the electoral college, candidates will pay much less attention to the small states because they will have less of a voice in the election than they did with the electoral college. That's how the small states will look at an amendent to abolish the electoral college.I somewhat agree, except the presidential candidates dont spend any time or give those staes attention now...Except if they hapen to buly their way tho the front of the primary or caucus line like Iowas and New Hampshire.The founding fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.That's all very interesting, but why even have a popular vote when the electoral vote determines the outcome? I think there's so much focus on the popular vote in Presidential elections because that has the least real meaning, it's mostly symbolic. Voters aren't nearly as interested in Congressional or local elections. People apparently like to vote most when their vote counts least.No.And since the Electoral College decides the Presidential election, the popular vote is meaningless, just a symbolic gesture.Here's one explanation...I guess it demonstrates the weakness of a Union.
Constitutional Topic: The Electoral College
Constitutional Topic The Electoral College - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
The Framers were wary of giving the people the power to directly elect the President — some felt the citizenry too beholden to local interests, too easily duped by promises or shenanigans, or simply because a national election, in the time of oil lamps and quill pens, was just impractical. Some proposals gave the power to the Congress, but this did not sit well with those who wanted to see true separation of the branches of the new government. Still others felt the state legislatures should decide, but this was thought to make the President too beholden to state interests. The Electoral College, proposed by James Wilson, was the compromise that the Constitutional Convention reached.
In practice electors are not free to vote as they. Some states have laws that require electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote. In the other states, electors are bound by pledges to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged. For elector to break their pledge to the party would be political suicide.
U. S. Electoral College Who Are the Electors How Do They Vote
To change to a popular vote would require a constitutional amendment. An amendment would require a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate plus the amendment would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. If people directly elected the president, candidates would focus their attention on population-rich states like California, New York and Texas rather than smaller states such as New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin. If 13 states refuse to ratify the amendment, it would fail. Since our 13 smallest states constitute only 5% of the US population, the amendment would most likely not be be ratified. So why should we waste the time on an amendment that is very unlike to be ratified?
Yet 30 years hence, you will still cry about bush Jr beating GoreNo you don't. The Electoral College's specific job is to make sure there is not too much democracy.We believe in equality and democracy
Yeah, democracy, a system where the power resides with the People...
...a conservative's worst nightmare.
However, if you do away with the electoral college, candidates will pay much less attention to the small states because they will have less of a voice in the election than they did with the electoral college. That's how the small states will look at an amendent to abolish the electoral college.I somewhat agree, except the presidential candidates dont spend any time or give those staes attention now...Except if they hapen to buly their way tho the front of the primary or caucus line like Iowas and New Hampshire.The founding fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.That's all very interesting, but why even have a popular vote when the electoral vote determines the outcome? I think there's so much focus on the popular vote in Presidential elections because that has the least real meaning, it's mostly symbolic. Voters aren't nearly as interested in Congressional or local elections. People apparently like to vote most when their vote counts least.No.And since the Electoral College decides the Presidential election, the popular vote is meaningless, just a symbolic gesture.
In practice electors are not free to vote as they. Some states have laws that require electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote. In the other states, electors are bound by pledges to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged. For elector to break their pledge to the party would be political suicide.
U. S. Electoral College Who Are the Electors How Do They Vote
To change to a popular vote would require a constitutional amendment. An amendment would require a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate plus the amendment would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. If people directly elected the president, candidates would focus their attention on population-rich states like California, New York and Texas rather than smaller states such as New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin. If 13 states refuse to ratify the amendment, it would fail. Since our 13 smallest states constitute only 5% of the US population, the amendment would most likely not be be ratified. So why should we waste the time on an amendment that is very unlike to be ratified?
Jeez.... This again.Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.The United States is the only country that elects a politically powerful president via an electoral college and the only one in which a candidate can become president without having obtained the highest number of votes in the sole or final round of popular voting.
—George C. Edwards, 2011
There is absolutely nothing in the US constitution that necessitates that the states hold elections to seat their electors.There is absolutely no directive in the US Constitution where it is written that the electors of any given state must cast their elector-ballots based on the popular vote results of their state
This is a good question and the answer to it is 'to be anti-democratic'. The people who insist that America is a republic and not a democracy (a ludicrous and empty argument, granted)
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
I believe I said exactly that. You just worded it differently.There is absolutely nothing in the US constitution that necessitates that the states hold elections to seat their electors.There is absolutely no directive in the US Constitution where it is written that the electors of any given state must cast their elector-ballots based on the popular vote results of their state
You seem angry.This is a good question and the answer to it is 'to be anti-democratic'. The people who insist that America is a republic and not a democracy (a ludicrous and empty argument, granted)
Wait, what? Doesn't Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution read:
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Fucking faggot liberals.
[emoji38]Since anyone with a dictionary knows that republican government is a subset of democracy, this poster fortunately escapes from the 'faggot' and 'liberal' lables, though he might wish to participate in the prefix activity.
By interposing between voters and candidates and by inflating the relative value of low population states' citizens' votes.And how does it do that?
This is a good question and the answer to it is 'to be anti-democratic'. The people who insist that America is a republic and not a democracy (a ludicrous and empty argument, granted)
Wait, what? Doesn't Article IV, Section 4 of the United States Constitution read:
The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and on application of the legislature, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence.
Fucking faggot liberals.
So then you obviously know who your elector is......right?Now you're apparently only left with silly, nonsensical answers.......rendering the popular vote completely irrelevant, since the electoral college decides the outcome.So what? Are you kidding? The popular vote is entirely meaningless, so why spend all that time and money on elections when it's all for show?
Because it isnt. She/he who wins the PV wins that state's electors insofar as terms go (the electors actually casts votes for their parties).
Nonsense.
The outcome is decided long before the EVs are cast
Better that than to be left hopelessly ignorant of the electoral process as you are.
The founding fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.That's all very interesting, but why even have a popular vote when the electoral vote determines the outcome? I think there's so much focus on the popular vote in Presidential elections because that has the least real meaning, it's mostly symbolic. Voters aren't nearly as interested in Congressional or local elections. People apparently like to vote most when their vote counts least.No.And since the Electoral College decides the Presidential election, the popular vote is meaningless, just a symbolic gesture.Here's one explanation...I guess it demonstrates the weakness of a Union.
Constitutional Topic: The Electoral College
Constitutional Topic The Electoral College - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
The Framers were wary of giving the people the power to directly elect the President — some felt the citizenry too beholden to local interests, too easily duped by promises or shenanigans, or simply because a national election, in the time of oil lamps and quill pens, was just impractical. Some proposals gave the power to the Congress, but this did not sit well with those who wanted to see true separation of the branches of the new government. Still others felt the state legislatures should decide, but this was thought to make the President too beholden to state interests. The Electoral College, proposed by James Wilson, was the compromise that the Constitutional Convention reached.
In practice electors are not free to vote as they. Some states have laws that require electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote. In the other states, electors are bound by pledges to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged. For elector to break their pledge to the party would be political suicide.
U. S. Electoral College Who Are the Electors How Do They Vote
To change to a popular vote would require a constitutional amendment. An amendment would require a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate plus the amendment would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. If people directly elected the president, candidates would focus their attention on population-rich states like California, New York and Texas rather than smaller states such as New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin. If 13 states refuse to ratify the amendment, it would fail. Since our 13 smallest states constitute only 5% of the US population, the amendment would most likely not be be ratified. So why should we waste the time on an amendment that is very unlike to be ratified?
All those questions obviously answer themselves, don't they. And they're just as obviously contrived to create the perception of real questions, aren't they. If you were half as smart as you think you are, you'd be twice as smart as I think you are.No, you're wrong again, and about so many things too. Elections are all about competing answers to the same contrived questions.Well of course campaign dollars are the most important thing about elections.It seems as though the loss of WTA would steer dollars out of rural America
I bet you have a good laugh at those who think elections are about determining policy direction.
Poor choice of words on my part.
Elections are not about competing answers to the same question; they are about the questions getting asked themselves. That is simply the truth in the current polticial system. If you question someone's integrity, you vote for the other gal/guy. In any binary system, you end up with this sort of relationship.
What I should have said was that if you want the rural areas to matter, getting rid of WTA may not be the best way to address it.
Did anyone ask about Obama's tax returns in 2012 dumb dumb? No. They asked about Romney's. Did anyone ask about McCain's birth certificate? No. They asked about Obama's. Did anyone seriously question Bush's patriotism in 2004? No but they questioned Kerry's eventhough Bush was partying in Alabama during the war and Kerry was in-country.
You seriously have zero idea what you're talking about.
This government worked quite well until you fucking progressives got ahold of it. The NPV is nothing more than a guaranteed uber liberal giving away our money to the underclass voters by perpetually electing Democrats. It ain't going to happen. NPV is dead in the water!Oh shut the fuck up and shove your indignant attitude up your ass.What is this 21st century "reality" that needs fixing.so much that we have to trash our constitution? Reality my ass. You people hate the constraint our God inspired constitution places on your BIG government and the freedoms it ensures for the individual.Why do we need to stick to outdated legislation when it comes to one of the most important political decisions in the life of the whole country? Why not popular vote? We believe in equality and democracy but for some reason let somebody decide the fate of of this country for us.
Well, it's a pipe dream that the small states would ever agree to give up their power in the Electoral college. Outside of denying their citizens of water or oxygen, there is no stick big enough to cajole them into giving it up.
So the next best thing would be to get a constitutional amendment forcing the President Elect to BOTH win the majority of the Electoral College (currently at 270 votes) and the plurality of the popular vote.
What do you think about that?
At least it sounds better than the system we've got right now. I believe though it is highly unfair and even undemocratic to let some people decide for us when there is popular vote results available. Lack of centralization in the US, that was supposed to enforce democracy in this country, sustains outdated social practices and slows down social development.
Well, this is the US and, for some reason, whatever the 50 or so founders thought was a good idea in the late 1700's are still the rules we have to live by regardless of whether or not they fit into the 20th century realities.
If you were watching this from Mars, you'd be laughing your ass off at the crap Americans choose to care about.
Screw you people. The EC is here forever.
As I've said 20 times now fuckwad.
However, the notion that the 50+ people that founded the nation got everything right is moronic as it would be to expect the 50 smartest people in the universe right now to craft a system that would work flawlessly 300 years from now.
Try wrapping your two working brain cells around that concept fuckwad.
The founding fathers created a Republic because they were afraid of a pure democracy. They feared the destructiveness that a majority might have in seeking equality and in the process taking away property rights from the wealthy. Thus, they created a republic in which the leaders are the representatives of the people.The founding fathers established the Electoral College as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens.That's all very interesting, but why even have a popular vote when the electoral vote determines the outcome? I think there's so much focus on the popular vote in Presidential elections because that has the least real meaning, it's mostly symbolic. Voters aren't nearly as interested in Congressional or local elections. People apparently like to vote most when their vote counts least.No.And since the Electoral College decides the Presidential election, the popular vote is meaningless, just a symbolic gesture.Here's one explanation...I guess it demonstrates the weakness of a Union.
Constitutional Topic: The Electoral College
Constitutional Topic The Electoral College - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
The Framers were wary of giving the people the power to directly elect the President — some felt the citizenry too beholden to local interests, too easily duped by promises or shenanigans, or simply because a national election, in the time of oil lamps and quill pens, was just impractical. Some proposals gave the power to the Congress, but this did not sit well with those who wanted to see true separation of the branches of the new government. Still others felt the state legislatures should decide, but this was thought to make the President too beholden to state interests. The Electoral College, proposed by James Wilson, was the compromise that the Constitutional Convention reached.
In practice electors are not free to vote as they. Some states have laws that require electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote. In the other states, electors are bound by pledges to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged. For elector to break their pledge to the party would be political suicide.
U. S. Electoral College Who Are the Electors How Do They Vote
To change to a popular vote would require a constitutional amendment. An amendment would require a 2/3 vote in the House and Senate plus the amendment would have to be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures. If people directly elected the president, candidates would focus their attention on population-rich states like California, New York and Texas rather than smaller states such as New Mexico, Nevada and Wisconsin. If 13 states refuse to ratify the amendment, it would fail. Since our 13 smallest states constitute only 5% of the US population, the amendment would most likely not be be ratified. So why should we waste the time on an amendment that is very unlike to be ratified?
Yeah I get it, the founding fathers created a republican system of government to protect the rights of the minority. They probably didn't anticipate Americans living under a tyranny of the minority, like we do now.
