Wanting votes to be counted "equally" they've made their state's vote null

[stdreb27]

Check this out. So Mass has just passed a law through their legislature (and gov has said in the past that he supported the idea) where the votes they have in the electroral college will be cast for the winner of the popular vote nationally instead of the winner of the popular vote in their state. And this is the argument for it from one of the senators.
"What we are submitting is the idea that the president should be selected by the majority of people in the United States of America," Senator James B. Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, said before the Senate voted to enact the bill.
Under the new bill, he said, "Every vote will be of the same weight across the country."
So now, if signed, it doesn't matter how the state of Mass votes, the State of Massachusetts will vote the way the popular vote went for the country... I just wonder what happens when all these liberals who voted for the bill watch a republican win the popular vote in the national election. Or better yet wins the popular vote, but not in Massachusetts. And those 12 votes are the swing he needs in the electoral college...
http://www.boston.com/news/local/bre...?p1=News_links

 

[flower]

I don't understand the voting system...I think that if the people vote then majority rules..But each state holds so many votes, some states get more votes than others

..It seems off to me. They have to count all the votes anyway, so use the count for each individual’s casted vote and let the majority rule. I hate politics...my vote doesn't count and I know it.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3291817
Check this out. So Mass has just passed a law through their legislature (and gov has said in the past that he supported the idea) where the votes they have in the electroral college will be cast for the winner of the popular vote nationally instead of the winner of the popular vote in their state. And this is the argument for it from one of the senators.
"What we are submitting is the idea that the president should be selected by the majority of people in the United States of America," Senator James B. Eldridge, an Acton Democrat, said before the Senate voted to enact the bill.
Under the new bill, he said, "Every vote will be of the same weight across the country."
So now, if signed, it doesn't matter how the state of Mass votes, the State of Massachusetts will vote the way the popular vote went for the country... I just wonder what happens when all these liberals who voted for the bill watch a republican win the popular vote in the national election. Or better yet wins the popular vote, but not in Massachusetts. And those 12 votes are the swing he needs in the electoral college...
http://www.boston.com/news/local/bre...?p1=News_links
The Electoral College is one of the worst democratic voting systems in the world. You do realize that the members of each state who cast the respective electoral votes for their state don't legally have to abide by the popular vote within their state, do you? "Electors are free to vote for anyone eligible to be President, but in practice pledge to vote for specific candidates and voters cast ballots for favored presidential and vice presidential candidates by voting for correspondingly pledged electors" Also, look who gets to make the deciding vote if there were ever a tie, or neither candidate receives the majority vote, in the Electoral Votes for a Presidnetial candidate - The House Of Representatives. Let's say McCain would've won the Popular Vote by a landslide over Obama. However, certain electoral members in key Democrat states decided to 'buck the system' and give their electoral votes to Obama, causing a tie or no majority win. Then the Democrat-led House would make the deciding vote on who was elected President. You think they would've followed the popular vote and picked McCain?

 

[reefraff]

Not too sure these lame laws would hold up to a court challenge. So say in 2000 the positions were reversed and Algore had the electoral college but Bush had the popular vote. Suddenly the voters of Mass who probably voted for Snore by a 2 to 1 margin suddenly have their votes counted for Bush and it put him ahead of Snore. I can't see any court allowing that to stand.

 

[cranberry]

I had no idea that votes were weighted differently. I always wondered what the heck it meant when talking about Mass. and what not.

 

[reefraff]

People say getting rid of the electoral college would give smaller states a greater voice but I don't buy that. The candidates are still going where the votes are. With modern technology there is no need for that system but it would be such a hassle to change it I really don't see the need.

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/3291852
People say getting rid of the electoral college would give smaller states a greater voice but I don't buy that. The candidates are still going where the votes are. With modern technology there is no need for that system but it would be such a hassle to change it I really don't see the need.
I think that's the justification for the Electoral College. If it goes by popular vote, then the candidates do most of their campaigning in New York, California, Texas, and any other state with large populations. But I still think the popular vote is a better representation of what the majority of American voters want. Here in Texas, I can vote for any Democrat candidate out there, and it would be moot point. I think the last time a Democrat Presidential candidate got the Texas Electoral Votes was Carter in '76. Before that, I think it was Johnson in '64.

 

[mantisman51]

The theory behind the electoral college is the same as all other foundational theories in our Constitution. That being no direct national votes, rather having a Republican democracy. We elect people to represent us-including the voting for president. True democracies are dangerous and prone to destabilizing swings in popular sentiment. Our forefathers went to extreme measures to moderate the populace. They were brilliant.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3291887
I think that's the justification for the Electoral College. If it goes by popular vote, then the candidates do most of their campaigning in New York, California, Texas, and any other state with large populations. But I still think the popular vote is a better representation of what the majority of American voters want. Here in Texas, I can vote for any Democrat candidate out there, and it would be moot point. I think the last time a Democrat Presidential candidate got the Texas Electoral Votes was Carter in '76. Before that, I think it was Johnson in '64.
Yeah but with or without the electoral college the big states are still getting all the attention. I actually think in this particular political era eliminating the EC would greatly help the Republican candidates. Of the biggest states only Texas is in the bag for the R's while the Dems Get New York, California and Jersey pretty sewn up. If states really wanted to make thing more fair they would apportion the electoral college votes so it isn't winner takes all but unless all do it nothing would really change. An idea that actually might pass in California but I don't see New York doing it.

 

[geoj]

Sounds like someone was sleeping during history class. The Electoral College was formed to give each state equal influence in the government.

 

[bang guy]

Originally Posted by GeoJ
http:///forum/post/3291904
Sounds like someone was sleeping during history class. The Electoral College was formed to give each state equal influence in the government.
Sure, but with the SCOTUS saying corporations are actual people the EC just becomes a tool for corporate entities to govern the country. I think eliminating the EC would give a lot more power to the independents. The Democrat and Republican corporate lackies would suffer. Good stuff for real American patriots!

 

[mantisman51]

Uh... no! It is exactly the opposite. It is designed to apportion the popular vote based on states populations, not equal votes for all states.

 

[geoj]

Modern Electoral College mechanics
The constitutional theory behind the indirect election of both the President and Vice President of the United States is that while the Congress is popularly elected by the people,[14] the President and Vice President are elected to be executives of a federation of independent states.
In the Federalist No. 39, James Madison argued that the Constitution was designed to be a mixture of state-based and population-based government. The Congress would have two houses: the state-based Senate and the population-based House of Representatives. Meanwhile, the President would be elected by a mixture of the two modes.[15]
Additionally, in the Federalist No. 10, James Madison argued against "an interested and overbearing majority" and the "mischiefs of faction" in an electoral system. He defined a faction as "a number of citizens whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community." Republican government (i.e., federalism, as opposed to direct democracy), with its varied distribution of voter rights and powers, would countervail against factions. Madison further postulated in the Federalist No. 10 that the greater the population and expanse of the Republic, the more difficulty factions would face in organizing due to such issues as sectionalism
So the reason your vote is not equal is so a factions of the population can't enslave an other.

 

[bang guy]

As long as Chinese, Saudi Arabian, and India national corporations are treated as "persons" equal to US citizens, the constitution as created by our founders is broken.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by Bang Guy
http:///forum/post/3291932
As long as Chinese, Saudi Arabian, and India national corporations are treated as "persons" equal to US citizens, the constitution as created by our founders is broken.
They aren't. US corporations are allowed to sponsor ads, just like they could before McCain Feingold.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Cranberry
http:///forum/post/3291843
I had no idea that votes were weighted differently. I always wondered what the heck it meant when talking about Mass. and what not.
lol, well I knew this would go there, but I was wanting to illustrate the stupidity of democrats.
As far as I'm concerned, I don't want today's politicians tinkering with the basic election process. No law is going to be written with the idea of fairness, but purely for their party's political gain...

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3291949
lol, well I knew this would go there, but I was wanting to illustrate the stupidity of democrats.
As far as I'm concerned, I don't want today's politicians tinkering with the basic election process. No law is going to be written with the idea of fairness, but purely for their party's political gain...
Hate to burst your bubble, but this issue has come up multiple times in the past, and both Democrats AND Republicans have tossed around the thoughts of looking at alternative voting procedures.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3291996
Hate to burst your bubble, but this issue has come up multiple times in the past, and both Democrats AND Republicans have tossed around the thoughts of looking at alternative voting procedures.
Once again, my point goes way over your head. What I keyed on was not the validity of the electoral college system. Nor was I calling democrats stupid for being in support of abolishing the electoral college.
The point is, you have democrats making trying to pass a law because they "think every vote should count equally." While they've basically disenfranchised their own state if the law passes.
Maybe darth could translate for me again...

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/3292011
Once again, my point goes way over your head. What I keyed on was not the validity of the electoral college system. Nor was I calling democrats stupid for being in support of abolishing the electoral college.
The point is, you have democrats making trying to pass a law because they "think every vote should count equally." While they've basically disenfranchised their own state if the law passes.
Maybe darth could translate for me again...

No, you're just trying to apply your staunch Republican views on every political issue that comes up. If there's anything political you disagree with, then it's obviously some ignorant 'Liberal' or 'Democrat' that's behind it. Are you saying the entire Legislative branch in Massachusetts that voted on this is made up entirely of Democrats? There's not one single Republican in that state that would've voted for this? I understand what your saying. You just made up your mind that it's those 'Stinkin' Democrats' that contrived this, and that no Republican would ever consider making a move like this.

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/3292055
No, you're just trying to apply your staunch Republican views on every political issue that comes up. If there's anything political you disagree with, then it's obviously some ignorant 'Liberal' or 'Democrat' that's behind it. Are you saying the entire Legislative branch in Massachusetts that voted on this is made up entirely of Democrats? There's not one single Republican in that state that would've voted for this? I understand what your saying. You just made up your mind that it's those 'Stinkin' Democrats' that contrived this, and that no Republican would ever consider making a move like this.
so now you read my mind. WOW.
Any time I see someone saying we want to make votes count equally. Then passes a bill to disenfranchise every vote in his state. Well how dare me point it out...
Are there any conservatives in Mass? lol
There are some very good arguments for and against the electoral college. And you yourself said, both parties have decided they didn't like it at some point or another. So hate to burst your bubble. I"m just making fun of a moronic statement by a democrat...
btw are you really trying to say, that dems didn't spearhead and pass this bill? It is funny, watching the news if one republican crosses votes with the dummycrats, that is bipartisanship. But if 20-30 dems don't vote for Obama's bill, I've never seen it called bipartisan opposition...
Who is applying their prejudice to who? It isn't me this time...