- Joined
- Dec 13, 2015
- Messages
- 9,594
- Reaction score
- 2,072
- Location
- France
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
WHEN?
From here: These States Want To Drastically Change How A President Gets Elected In 2020
Excerpt:
The manipulations that ensued from the law in 1803, when the US was a neophyte nation and no other nation on earth (except France) had separated itself from its royal head-of-state, were perhaps decent at the time. But they have not served well recently. Significant ameliorations must be mad to avoid manipulations of the popular-vote for the presidency. Without which the US has no good reason to be calling itself a True Democracy.
For instance:
*Why should the entire popular-vote of a nation be secondary to the Electoral-College vote that decides the presidency?
*In 1803, when the EC began "regulating" state presidential votes there was probably a need. Reporting the vote to Congress required that more than just a few-people report the results authentically to that august body in order to confirm the vote.
*Which unfortunately created crucial mistakes in the way the vote is counted. For instance, over time, the Popular-Vote has become the common means of obtaining results in truly democratic countries. But, in 1803, such was not the case because all other countries at the time were "kingdoms".
*There is no historical reason for which such a tired-law should still determine the manner in which the presidential popular-vote is taken and reported incorrectly to Congress in DC.
*Especially when the number of EC-votes of a state often has no proper alignment with the state's actual voting-population. The correction necessary is simple and patently obvious - states need only report the simple popular-vote count by candidate to Congress!
*Which then authenticates the vote-count and announces the results.
Just when is Uncle Sam going to stop with nonsensical voting-procedures* and employ the simplest means to define the winner of any political-vote in the nation.
When ... ?
*Which means also that we junk the voting-machination that was invented also in the early 19th century by a governor of Massachusetts known as "gerrymandering"
From here: These States Want To Drastically Change How A President Gets Elected In 2020
Excerpt:
Recently there has been increased pushback against America's electoral college, and calls to elect the president using the popular vote. This debate is leaving many to wonder how the electoral college will work in the 2020 presidential election. Several states have passed legislation aiming to elect the next president of the United States by popular vote.
The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, a group of states who have pledged their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, is gaining momentum. Colorado became the latest state to join, and more states, like Maryland, are introducing national popular vote legislation. Although more states need to join the coalition for this new voting method to be enacted, the group is well on its way to making major changes in 2020.
Currently, most states give their allocated electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in that state (with exceptions in Maine and Nebraska that allow electoral votes to be split between candidates). Some claim this system ensures that presidential candidates spend a majority of their time campaigning in swing states, according to Vox. In the 2016 presidential election, 94 percent of events took place in the 11 "battleground states" identified by Politico plus Arizona, according to National Popular Vote.
The manipulations that ensued from the law in 1803, when the US was a neophyte nation and no other nation on earth (except France) had separated itself from its royal head-of-state, were perhaps decent at the time. But they have not served well recently. Significant ameliorations must be mad to avoid manipulations of the popular-vote for the presidency. Without which the US has no good reason to be calling itself a True Democracy.
For instance:
*Why should the entire popular-vote of a nation be secondary to the Electoral-College vote that decides the presidency?
*In 1803, when the EC began "regulating" state presidential votes there was probably a need. Reporting the vote to Congress required that more than just a few-people report the results authentically to that august body in order to confirm the vote.
*Which unfortunately created crucial mistakes in the way the vote is counted. For instance, over time, the Popular-Vote has become the common means of obtaining results in truly democratic countries. But, in 1803, such was not the case because all other countries at the time were "kingdoms".
*There is no historical reason for which such a tired-law should still determine the manner in which the presidential popular-vote is taken and reported incorrectly to Congress in DC.
*Especially when the number of EC-votes of a state often has no proper alignment with the state's actual voting-population. The correction necessary is simple and patently obvious - states need only report the simple popular-vote count by candidate to Congress!
*Which then authenticates the vote-count and announces the results.
Just when is Uncle Sam going to stop with nonsensical voting-procedures* and employ the simplest means to define the winner of any political-vote in the nation.
When ... ?
*Which means also that we junk the voting-machination that was invented also in the early 19th century by a governor of Massachusetts known as "gerrymandering"
Last edited: