• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Popular Vote?

kamino

Active member
Joined
Jul 14, 2008
Messages
320
Reaction score
79
Location
Silverdale, Wa.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
National Popular Vote Inc. is a 501(c)(4) non-profit corporation whose specific purpose is to study, analyze and educate the public regarding its proposal to implement a nationwide popular election of the President of the United States. Should we really let the fate of the next president of the United States be placed in the American voter? Sure, the majority of us here on DP are relatively smart, because we actively search and come to conclusions on our own, but what about the rest of America, who knows very little about the U.S. and don’t even care until Election Day. Take a look, maybe we should very seriously think about this, it could change the way we do business forever…


National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President


National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President
 

Study: American Voters Dumb as Ever! - Political Machine
 

Kathleen Parker - Voters Fail the Test - washingtonpost.com


5 Myths About Those Civic-Minded, Deeply Informed Voters
 
The people vote for President now in all 50 states and have done so in most states for 200 years.

So, the issue raised by the National Popular Vote legislation is not about whether there will be "mob rule" in presidential elections, but whether the "mob" in a handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Florida, get disproportionate attention from presidential candidates, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored. In 2004, candidates spent over two thirds of their visits and two-thirds of their money in just 6 states and 99% of their money in just 16 states, while ignoring the rest of the country.

The current system does NOT provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,000 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 10 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. The electors are dedicated party activists who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
 
Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation's first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation's first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote, and only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). Since then, as a result of changes in state laws, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.

see National Popular Vote -- Electoral college reform by direct election of the President
 
Ahh, a great idea, let's give 5-10 areas th say in Presidential elections. Let's ignore the rural areas for the dense Urban areas!

What a FANTASTIC IDEA!

You live in a smaller state? Small towns? When this goes in, you'll have NO SAY at all. Oh sure... you can vote, but the politicians... They won't care about you! They'll spend their time and money in:
New York City
Los Angeles
Houston
Boston
Miami
San Fransisco
San Diego
Dallas
Philadelphia

That's where the votes are, that's where the money will go, that's where their cares and concerns are.

So let's hear it for CITY VOTING! Dis-enfranchisement of anyone dumb enough not to live in a high-density population areas!
 

Umm... no. It costs ALOT more money to advetise in NYC than in Nowheresville, Nebraska. If I broadcast in Dallas and it reaches 100,000 people. It should cost approximately the same as an ad that reaches 100,000 people from rural NJ.
 
Umm... no. It costs ALOT more money to advetise in NYC than in Nowheresville, Nebraska. If I broadcast in Dallas and it reaches 100,000 people. It should cost approximately the same as an ad that reaches 100,000 people from rural NJ.

What about the rate of return? If I advertise widget x in Dallas and it sells vs. NYC and it doesn't sell in NYC why should I have to pay more for NYC?
 
What about the rate of return? If I advertise widget x in Dallas and it sells vs. NYC and it doesn't sell in NYC why should I have to pay more for NYC?

Well, their advertising will be aimed towards moderates. If Dallas has 14% moderates and NYC has 10%. The return would be higher for Dallas.
So most advertisement will go towards the Indipendent suburbs versus the Democratic cities and Repulican ruralvilles.
 
Over the past eight years, in the name of reviving Russia after the tumult of the 1990s, Mr. Putin has waged an unforgiving campaign to clamp down on democracy and extend control over the government and large swaths of the economy. He has suppressed the independent news media, nationalized important industries, smothered the political opposition and readily deployed the security services to carry out the Kremlin’s wishes.

Kim u can go the same way as Mr Putin,would u like that.I hope not, is this
what u are suggesting haha.A tae Fook no way.

It is ok m8 only kidding.
merry christmas to U

mikeey
 
Umm... no. It costs ALOT more money to advetise in NYC than in Nowheresville, Nebraska. If I broadcast in Dallas and it reaches 100,000 people. It should cost approximately the same as an ad that reaches 100,000 people from rural NJ.

Uhm, you spend a million bucks to advertise.

You do that in rural Nebraska... you might reach 250k people.

Same in NYC might reach 5 million.

You hold a rally in Rural Nebraska, you might get 1000 people

Do that in NYC, you get 10,000.

Where are you going to find the most homogeneous groups of people with the same concerns, needs and wants?

Rural America, or packed cities.

DING DING DING! Cities. It's cheaper to market to 10 million people in one area then it is to cater to 1 million people spread out.
 
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. " -Benjamin Franklin



The electoral college provides for these individual states to have equal say in presidential elections.

We are 50 individual states.
 

Those 50 states do NOT have equal say in the presidential election. Equal say would mean that each state gets equal electorals. Since they don't, they don't get equal say.
 
Those 50 states do NOT have equal say in the presidential election. Equal say would mean that each state gets equal electorals. Since they don't, they don't get equal say.

Yeah, actually they do. How do they not? Because you say so?
 
Yeah, actually they do. How do they not? Because you say so?


ummm... he just told you how they didn't have equal say.
Unless, that is, you think CA's 55 votes equals NV's 4 votes?

Also, this whole, "the candidates won't care about rural hick NB" stuff is wrong.

In CA:
Democratic / 7,683,495 / 44.40%

Republican / 5,428,052 / 31.37%

http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/ror/ror-pages/15day-presgen-08/county.pdf

So a politician spends more time in CA than in AL. So what? Those in smaller states are still going to hear what the candidate has to say about issues. I lived in CA for a long time and not once did Presidents comments make me worry or concerned over what was going to happen in CA more than what would happen to the US.

As it stands in CA, my vote counts for nothing being a Republican. I get trounced.
Take it the other way. Republicans don't spend too much time campaigning CA as much, since they will lose it. What is the difference between that and small states being ignored? Nothing, expect that small states have small populations, so actually, LESS people are being ignored that way.

If there was a popular vote... my vote would actually count towards the Presidency, instead of only counting to the EC and then getting dumped in the garbage can in favor of giving the state to the Libs.
 
Last edited:
Yeah know, if you go back and read the Founders reasons for having an electoral collage Vs a popular vote, you might just see how wrong you are.

You miss the bigger picture, it's a small minded POV to take the "Well I'm a so and so member, and my state generally goes the other way so my vote doesn't count..." line of thought.

So what if a politician spends more time in CA then AL? Hello, do you realize they would spend far more time appealing to city dwellers vs rural, that right there should be a huge clue as to why the EC is good. The point of the EC is to keep the focus of our leaders spread across the political spectrum, not focused on a single voter block.

If I were running for President, and it was a popular vote, I'd spend most of my time and effort in the cities, appealing to what they need and desire. More people live in cities, it's cheaper to get my message out, far easier to appeal to such dense areas where more people have the same concern then it would be to spend time out in the small counties, out in the rural areas.
 
The electoral college vs the popular vote is really a matter of picking your poison. Politicians will always cheerfully prostitute themselves to pick up votes, and ignore the rest of the country in the process. The real choice is whether they ignore the majority of the populace or the minority. Personally, I'd go for the popular vote, because having politicians ignore the entire damned populations of Texas and California is slightly worse than ignoring the rural folks of the country. Also, it would dramatically improve voter turnout and civic involvement if everyone knew their vote counted. Finally, it would make it possible to allow for new voter systems like instant runoff, which could actually allow third party voting. The electoral college was a practical idea when it was first put into in action, but it has outlived its usefulness and its time to move on to something better.
 
Yeah know, if you go back and read the Founders reasons for having an electoral collage Vs a popular vote, you might just see how wrong you are.

I am "wrong" about nothing here...
The Founders opinions on this aren't any more valid than mine, to be honest.


You miss the bigger picture, it's a small minded POV to take the "Well I'm a so and so member, and my state generally goes the other way so my vote doesn't count..." line of thought.

Actually, what I am doing is looking at the LARGER POINT OF VIEW...
You just aren't recognizing it for some reason.



That is what they are doing now, just with states...
AND that is what I have been saying. Thanks. :2razz:



And that is what they do with Large states versus small states...

Really and truly... popular vote is far more logical.
 

Exactly right. Perfectly said.
 
Thankfully the Electoral College won't be changed anytime soon. Despite the emotional arguments made here, the solid reasonings for why the EC is in place trump the "but I want every vote to count" mindset cannot over come the reality that the USA is not a Democracy, and thus the system will not change.

Get that folks, America is NOT Democracy, we're a Representative Republic.
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…