Wolfpack

This is an issue which I do not think gets anywhere near the amount of attention I feel it deserves. It would completely change the way we elect our Presidents, and it is gaining steam. It is called the National Popular Vote Referendum. This movement wants to get enough states (totalling 270 electors) to agree to assign all their electors to whichever candidate wins the national popular vote - no matter how the citizens of that particular state votes.

Massachusetts is going to be voting on whether or not to enact this legislation into state law. 5 states have already done so (but with the caveat that it only goes into effect once enough states sign on). This is an issue which I don't think really falls along normal party lines (except for those few remaining democrats still smarting over their anger from the 2000 election where Gore own the popular vote but lost the electoral vote).

Mass. may join effort to bypass Electoral College - Local News Updates - MetroDesk - The Boston Globe

efin98

Unconstitutional in principle and would be a slap in the face of voters when the choice directly contradicts the choice of who the voters wanted in the state.

__________________
"As long as we have Belichick, I always think that we're going to be just fine."...Tom Brady, in reference to his coach.

“It is what it is, but it ain’t what you think.”...Brandon Spikes

Wolfpack

Well, for those who oppose this referendum, the problem is that there is nothing unconstitutional about it. The Constitution doesn't saying anything about how states must choose their electors. Back in the old days, there were a lot of states that would just have the legislature (and not the citizenry) vote on it. Even today, there is no one single set standard because something like 2 states (I wanna say Maine and Nebraska but don't quote me on that) do not have the "winner take all" set up which the other 48 states have.

Mrs.PatsFanInVa

At first glance, without reading and researching further, it sounds like a fairly good idea.

But that's just what I think now - and I'm not sure that's how I'd feel tomorrow.

The whole electoral college thing never made much sense to me in the first place, though.

khayos

It's incredibly important in terms of the rights of states with small populations ... then again, the states haven't exercised their power in quite some time. Immigration and healthcare may change that.

Wolfpack

IMHO, these people are trying to solve a problem by simply creating a different one.

Right now, the problem (as they see it) is that so much of the election simply comes down to a few key battleground states, with everyone else being left out in the cold. Of course, if this referendum comes to pass, then campaigning will shift into large population centers and cities.

Holy Diver

The Electoral College is EXACTLY like the college bowl series. The popular vote is like
every other NCAA sport.

The bowl series was put in place for a regional reason that nobody can understand today. It is in place today because those same old timers are still getting filthy rich off of keeping the system the way it is.

Every other sport in college, including Division 2 football are decided by a playoff system (popular vote). Its the right thing to do.


The way it stands today, if you voted for John McCain and lived in California, your vote didnt count.

Imagine if all of our votes counted for the presidential election?


The electoral college can lick my *&%%s

Wolfpack

Ignoring your football analogy (because it is too stupid to address), you statement that someone in California's "vote didn't count" if they voted for McCain is silly. Why didn't that person's vote count? Because McCain lost CA? Well according to that logic, anyone who votes for the losing candidate's vote "didn't count."

Holy Diver

yeah.

If you lived in Orange County, voted for McCain (which is probably true), your vote didnt count. The ELECTORAL VOTES used to seat a president all went to Obama. tilt it however you want, but McCain didn't get a single electoral vote for president from the golden state. Meaning his total electoral vote count for California (The kind of vote NEEDED to become presaident) was zero. Not sure how else to explain that to you.

And the analogy is spot on, Every college championship is decided fairly, and on the field....except one. In a system of elections, EVERY single one of them is decided by a popular vote at all levels of the democratic process...all save 1.

The Presidential.

You must be a USC or Florida fan ... Screw Boise State and Utah!

Real World

Terrible idea, and if it were to ever happen, which I don't think it will, then we could potentially see some states secede. Who could blame them?

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him."
Leo Tolstoy, 1897