3rdnlng Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 He's still pissing and moaning: http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics/al-gore-calls-for-end-of-electoral-college-20120830 From the comments section: "Isn't the point of the electoral college that the president "of the united states" be elected by the united.... states? The federal government was supposed to be a federation of the states themselves, not a direct representative of the people. (Hence the state legislature originally choosing senators, etc.) This vision of the fed government probably doesn't match how we see it today, but I think that was the original idea anyway." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 (edited) Meh...to be honest it's pretty retarded. As are a lot of things embodied in our ancient constitution (which is certainly a great piece of political science history that we are all proud of) Edited September 1, 2012 by TheNewBills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 Meh...to be honest it's pretty retarded. As are a lot of things embodied in our ancient constitution (which is certainly a great piece of political science history that we are all proud of) Why should we be proud of our Constitution? It was written by a bunch of dead White Capitalistic Heterosexual Christian males Besides the fact they knew what they were doing, their cultural identity is not kosher Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Philly McButterpants Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 Why should we be proud of our Constitution? It was written by a bunch of dead White Capitalistic Heterosexual Christian males Besides the fact they knew what they were doing, their cultural identity is not kosher You forgot racists too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 It does seem kind of silly to keep the electoral college when the federal government has trampled over states rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 i mean, hes the president of us all, so its kind of dumb for fl or ohio to decide it... just sayin... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WorldTraveller Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 I believe that the overall popular vote should decide the outcome of the elections, that way everyones vote actually counts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted September 1, 2012 Author Share Posted September 1, 2012 State Rights---all 57 of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 I believe that the overall popular vote should decide the outcome of the elections, that way everyones vote actually counts. That's a good point too. In the years I haven't voted its primarily because I know as a NYS voter the state will go democrat anyway, so why bother. Don't think id ever miss an election if that werent the case. Eliminating EC could significantly increase voter turnout. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 It does seem kind of silly to keep the electoral college when the federal government has trampled over states rights. You do have a point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 (edited) do any of you ever check the facts? Republican state legislators in Pennsylvania are pushing a scheme that, if GOPers in other states follow their lead, could cause President Barack Obama to lose the 2012 election—not because of the vote count, but because of new rules. That's not all: There's no legal way for Democrats to stop them. The problem for Obama, and the opportunity for Republicans, is the electoral college. Every political junkie knows that the presidential election isn't a truly national contest; it's a state-by-state fight, and each state is worth a number of electoral votes equal to the size of the state's congressional delegation. (The District of Columbia also gets three votes.) There are 538 electoral votes up for grabs; win 270, and you're the president. http://www.motherjon...beat-obama-2012 -------------- Nebraska, Wisconsin too Edited September 1, 2012 by BillsFan-4-Ever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 do any of you ever check the facts? Republican state legislators in Pennsylvania are pushing a scheme that, if GOPers in other states follow their lead, could cause President Barack Obama to lose the 2012 election—not because of the vote count, but because of new rules. That's not all: There's no legal way for Democrats to stop them. The problem for Obama, and the opportunity for Republicans, is the electoral college. Every political junkie knows that the presidential election isn't a truly national contest; it's a state-by-state fight, and each state is worth a number of electoral votes equal to the size of the state's congressional delegation. (The District of Columbia also gets three votes.) There are 538 electoral votes up for grabs; win 270, and you're the president. Republican state legislators in Pennsylvania are pushing a scheme that, if GOPers in other states follow their lead, could cause President Barack Obama to lose the 2012 election—not because of the vote count, but because of new rules. That's not all: There's no legal way for Democrats to stop them. The problem for Obama, and the opportunity for Republicans, is the electoral college. Every political junkie knows that the presidential election isn't a truly national contest; it's a state-by-state fight, and each state is worth a number of electoral votes equal to the size of the state's congressional delegation. (The District of Columbia also gets three votes.) There are 538 electoral votes up for grabs; win 270, and you're the president. http://www.motherjon...beat-obama-2012 -------------- Nebraska, Wisconsin too You're repeating yourself Mother Jones Question. Why is it when a Republican proposes something, it's a scheme. But when a Democrat proposes something, its a reform? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 State Rep. Dan LeMathieu (R-Sheboygan County) emailed legislators Wednesday morning asking for support for a bill he filed to switch the state from winner-take-all electoral votes to distribution based on presidential candidates winning congressional districts, with only two electoral votes going to the statewide winner. The move follows the introduction of a similar proposal in Pennsylvania. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 State Rep. Dan LeMathieu (R-Sheboygan County) emailed legislators Wednesday morning asking for support for a bill he filed to switch the state from winner-take-all electoral votes to distribution based on presidential candidates winning congressional districts, with only two electoral votes going to the statewide winner. The move follows the introduction of a similar proposal in Pennsylvania. States unilaterally reducing their own say in who gets elected president. What a bunch of pinheads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 sometimes you need to read it twice to understand it. that's right my paste went in twice. . do you have anything to say about Red states wanting the same thing? this issue has been discussed for many years!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 that's right my paste went in twice. . do you have anything to say about Red states wanting the same thing? Anything worth saying, is worth saying twice right do you have anything to say about Red states wanting the same thing? Red state, blue state, swing state. If that's how the state wants to apportion their Electoral Votes, that's up to them. Article II Section I Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector. Doesn't say anything about national popular vote, statewide popular vote, or vote by Congressional District. State Legislatures could pass a bill saying EVs are allocated by Rock Paper Scissors. Totally up to the state how they want to allocate EVs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 “Unfortunately, the United States has a long history of voter fraud that has been documented by historians and journalists,” Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in 2008, upholding a strict Indiana voter-ID law designed to combat fraud. Justice Stevens, who personally encountered voter fraud while serving on various reform commissions in his native Chicago, spoke for a six-member majority. In a decision two years earlier clearing the way for an Arizona ID law, the Court had declared in a unanimous opinion that “confidence in the integrity of our electoral processes is essential to the functioning of our participatory democracy. Voter fraud drives honest citizens out of the democratic process and breeds distrust of our government. Voters who fear their legitimate votes will be outweighed by fraudulent ones will feel disenfranchised." Was Justice Stevens wrong ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UConn James Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 sometimes you need to read it twice to understand it. that's right my paste went in twice. . do you have anything to say about Red states wanting the same thing? this issue has been discussed for many years!!! I wouldn't have a problem with this system. Winner-take-all / 50%+1 seems more like a system created to make results easier to tabulate back when communication was slow. Red states and blue states, whatever. It's a more nearly accurate allocation that closer reflects the proportion of a vote. Sucks when a guy wins 49% of a state and has NOTHING to show for it, and small but densely-populated geographic areas can drown out the voices and concerns of less dense areas. So, if Cities X, Y and Z want to dump their garbage in Towns H, I, J, K, L and M... well, there's nothing the small towns can do about this tyranny via vote if it's 50+1 winner take all. The system where it gets decided by a national cumulative vote is interesting as well. Some states have already passed legislation signed on to that and are waiting for there to be 270 EC votes of signees to trigger its implementation. Lots of things to sort out in a deal like that, tho. Voting systems would have to be standardized. There would probably have to be a national voter ID card (and perhaps using the indelible ink) for this to gain any kind of traction and to ENSURE there's no multiple voting, and probably a federal department to weed out convicted-felon voting, and to guard against gerry-mandering, etc. I don't see how this happens in our lifetimes. A state congressional-district allocation system would be easier to swallow, at least as a transition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 You forgot racists too. You could add slave owners as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in San Diego Posted September 1, 2012 Share Posted September 1, 2012 I think the electoral college vote should be dropped as well. It was put in place during a time that the popular vote couldn't be trusted to vote a legit viable candidate into the office of the president. Those days are long gone and its time to use the popular vote to represent the real choice of the American people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts