• National Popular Vote bill in Congress could allow each vote to matter for Presidential elections
    70 replies, posted
This was in an email from demandprogress, I thought FP might like to know about it. This article mentions the implications for CA, but it does affect other states too. [QUOTE]Under the National Popular Vote bill, the Electoral College would be reformed so that the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC will become President. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE]Presidential campaigns routinely ignore California because electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most popular votes within each separate state. The result is that candidates ignore states where they are comfortably ahead or hopelessly behind. [B]In 2008, two-thirds of the campaign events and money went into six closely divided "battleground" states.[/B] 98% went to just 15 states, not including California. Thus, California voters are mere spectators to the presidential election. The same is true for 35 other reliably red or reliably blue states. Under a national popular vote, every voter in every state would matter in every presidential election. A vote in California would matter as much as a vote in a closely divided battleground state such as Ohio, Florida, or Colorado. The states have the constitutional authority to change the method of awarding electoral votes and thereby establish a national popular vote for President. The National Popular Vote bill would mean that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC) would become President. The current system has elected a second-place candidate in 4 of 56 presidential elections.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]The National Popular Vote bill is endorsed by the League of Women Voters, Common Cause, FairVote, Sierra Club, the Brennan Center for Justice, NAACP, National Black Caucus of State Legislators, ACLU, the National Latino Congreso, Asian American Action Fund, DEMOS, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, Public Citizen, U.S. PIRG, and Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund. The bill has been endorsed by newspapers such as the Hartford Courant, New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, Boston Globe, Sacramento Bee, and many more. As the Sarasota Florida Herald Tribune said: "The most compelling and practical alternative is promoted by a bipartisan group called National Popular Vote. The NPV proposal calls for legislatures to pass bills committing their state's electoral votes to the candidate who receives the most popular votes nationwide; the bill would take effect only when enacted by states that together have enough electoral votes to elect a president." The National Popular Vote bill has already been enacted into law by New Jersey, Maryland, Vermont, Illinois, Washington state, California, Massachusetts, the District of Columbia, and Hawaii. The bill has also been approved by at least one legislative house in an additional 12 states.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php[/url] ^You can enter your zip code, and there it will have a preconstructed email to your state's congress members, you just fill out your email info and crap if you want to support it.
[del]Am I missing something? I thought the Electoral College just counted votes.[/del] SilentOpp and LunchboxOfDoom explained it, thanks guys.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;34513309]Am I missing something? I thought the Electoral College just counted votes.[/QUOTE] The electoral college vote doesn't always follow the popular vote(which is every person's individual vote). Instead, the electoral college takes the popular vote of the state, and assigns all that state's electoral college weight to a candidate. Basically, if California was worth 6 votes, and a candidate won 51% of the state, they get all 6 votes in the electoral college. Of course, there are a couple states who assign their electoral college votes according to the popular vote(in a 4 total point state, a 75% popular vote would get you three votes, the rest is given to the next highest winner). This bill is almost useless, I believe the popular vote has only been different from the electoral college results twice.
The reason why the system was put in was because of how stupid people can be.
[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;34513309]Am I missing something? I thought the Electoral College just counted votes.[/QUOTE] I'll explain to you basically how they function. Let's say you have a bunch of people in a room. You divide them up into 50 groups of varying sizes (this simulates the electoral college). You then assign each group a point value that correlates to its size. Then you have each individual person vote for a color (let's Blue and Red; this simulates the popular vote). You then tally the votes up, but the color with the most votes isn't necessarily the winner. To figure out which color is the winner, you have to add up the points you previously gave to each group simulating the electoral college and see who has more. That's how it works. And it is a stupid and undemocratic as fuck system.
This sounds like a good idea. I'm not partial to the electoral college system as it is now.
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wC42HgLA4k[/media]
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;34513351]The electoral college vote doesn't always follow the popular vote(which is every person's individual vote). Instead, the electoral college takes the popular vote of the state, and assigns all that state's electoral college weight to a candidate. Basically, if California was worth 6 votes, and a candidate won 51% of the state, they get all 6 votes in the electoral college. Of course, there are a couple states who assign their electoral college votes according to the popular vote(in a 4 total point state, a 75% popular vote would get you three votes, the rest is given to the next highest winner). This bill is almost useless, I believe the popular vote has only been different from the electoral college results twice.[/QUOTE] I believe it has happened three times, but regardless, this is the President of the United States we are talking about. It shouldn't happen once.
I'd like to see the alternate vote in there as well.
The United States was built to be a [B]Republic[/B] not a democracy. A vast majority of the Founding Fathers were against democracy. Just sayin'
Winner take all and first past the post are the most fucked up things in our political system. Not only should we get rid of the Electoral College asap the US should move to an Instant-runoff voting system so 3rd Partly candidates might have a chance to be in the spotlight instead of being pushed to the side. Oh look another C.G.P. Grey video: [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE[/media]
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34514270]The United States was built to be a [B]Republic[/B] not a democracy. A vast majority of the Founding Fathers were against democracy.[/QUOTE]Ok, and that doesn't make it alright.
[QUOTE=LunchboxOfDoom;34513587]I'll explain to you basically how they function. Let's say you have a bunch of people in a room. You divide them up into 50 groups of varying sizes (this simulates the electoral college). You then assign each group a point value that correlates to its size. Then you have each individual person vote for a color (let's Blue and Red; this simulates the popular vote). You then tally the votes up, but the color with the most votes isn't necessarily the winner. To figure out which color is the winner, you have to add up the points you previously gave to each group simulating the electoral college and see who has more. That's how it works. And it is a stupid and undemocratic as fuck system.[/QUOTE] The electoral college works alright for a two party system, which is the way we should be electing presidents anyways. Electoral vote will represent the popular vote almost 100% of the time.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34514340]The electoral college works alright for a two party system, which is the way we should be electing presidents anyways. Electoral vote will represent the popular vote almost 100% of the time.[/QUOTE]And when it fails, we get Bush Jr.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34514270]The United States was built to be a [B]Republic[/B] not a democracy. A vast majority of the Founding Fathers were against democracy. Just sayin'[/QUOTE] The president wasn't even envisioned to have as much authority as he does now, was he? [editline]2nd February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34514350]And when it fails, we get Bush Jr.[/QUOTE] That's true, it isn't perfect all the time.
[QUOTE=Doctor Zedacon;34514350]And when it fails, we get Bush Jr.[/QUOTE] Oh no, an error happened once, the whole system that has functioned for over 200 years must be terribly broken forever.
But Bush Jr. was a legal issue anyways. A bad ruling by the Supreme Court and potential voter fraud got Bush into power.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34514351]The president wasn't even envisioned to have as much authority as he does now, was he? [editline]2nd February 2012[/editline] That's true, it isn't perfect all the time.[/QUOTE] Electoral College was designed to help protect smaller states with small populations from being over run continiously by the voting power of larger states with larger populations.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;34514372]Two party systems are idiotic though. It doesn't represent 100% of the popular vote when only 51% of the nation's votes are taken into consideration.[/QUOTE] Neither does a multi party system. A multi party system can be less representative of the majority than a two party system, as far as presidential elections goes.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;34514384]You mean it's never perfect. [editline]2nd February 2012[/editline] Slavery functioned for hundreds of years I guess we should have kept that too, huh?[/QUOTE] Apples and oranges. [editline]2nd February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Atlascore;34514372]Two party systems are idiotic though. It doesn't represent 100% of the popular vote when only 51% of the nation's votes are taken into consideration.[/QUOTE] Not like it's law-mandated or anything...
[QUOTE=Atlascore;34514446]A lot of things are law-mandated, would you mind pointing out where the US government has ever given a fuck about that? We pretty much ignore our own laws, we use the Constitution as toilet paper. Also just because it's a law doesn't make it right.[/QUOTE] I said it was [B]not[/B] law mandated to be a two party system.
[QUOTE=SilentOpp;34513351]The electoral college vote doesn't always follow the popular vote(which is every person's individual vote). Instead, the electoral college takes the popular vote of the state, and assigns all that state's electoral college weight to a candidate. Basically, if California was worth 6 votes, and a candidate won 51% of the state, they get all 6 votes in the electoral college. Of course, there are a couple states who assign their electoral college votes according to the popular vote(in a 4 total point state, a 75% popular vote would get you three votes, the rest is given to the next highest winner). This bill is almost useless, I believe the popular vote has only been different from the electoral college results twice.[/QUOTE] Any step towards voting reform is a good thing.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34514456]I said it was [B]not[/B] law mandated to be a two party system.[/QUOTE] It's not mandated but the way the electoral college works greatly favors a two party system.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;34514536]No, you didn't, English obviously isn't your first language. "Not like it's law-mandated or anything..." is basically another way of saying "Yes, it's law-mandated"[/QUOTE] Let me get this straight - by saying it isn't mandated, I'm actually saying it is?
[QUOTE=Atlascore;34514536]No, you didn't, English obviously isn't your first language. "Not like it's law-mandated or anything..." is basically another way of saying "Yes, it's law-mandated"[/QUOTE] I love it when people assume sarcasm when sarcasm isn't used, or when people take something sarcastic literally.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34514551]Let me get this straight - by saying it isn't mandated, I'm actually saying it is?[/QUOTE] When someone says "Not like it's _____ or anything", it is generally meant sarcastically.
[QUOTE=Atlascore;34514575]You don't understand English at all. "Not like it's x or anything" is a sarcastic way of saying yes.[/QUOTE] I was [B]not[/B] being sarcastic. If you have ever read any other post by me, you would know very clearly when I am making a sarcastic remark. [editline]2nd February 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=yawmwen;34514580]When someone says "Not like it's _____ or anything", it is generally meant sarcastically.[/QUOTE] That wasn't the intention. Sorry for the miscommunication.
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34514392]Electoral College was designed to help protect smaller states with small populations from being over run continiously by the voting power of larger states with larger populations.[/QUOTE] Why in the world would I want some people's votes to count more because they live in a small state
[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;34514392]Electoral College was designed to help protect smaller states with small populations from being over run continiously by the voting power of larger states with larger populations.[/QUOTE] Except that the video taking about the electoral explains why even the electoral college doesn't prevent favoritism. Because a candidate only needs 51% of the vote in any given state to take that entire state, they have no reason to pay attention to states where one of the parties leads by more than 50%. For this reason, as stated in the video, places like Florida and Ohio get undue attention, and not even a majority of the states are 'cared about' in a presidential election.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;34514597]Why in the world would I want some people's votes to count more because they live in a small state[/QUOTE] If you lived in a place like Washington you would have a good understanding of why this can be a problem. Smaller areas should have a say as well. In Washington most of the politics are dictated from Seattle and Tacoma. People in Eastern Washington are paying taxes and being run by things that don't effect them. Why should someone in Spokane be paying for Mass Transit in Seattle? It's tyrannical in it's own way.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.