Welcome to PatsFans.com

Whacking the Electoral College

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsFanInVa, Oct 21, 2012.

  1. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,985
    Likes Received:
    178
    Ratings:
    +282 / 5 / -8

    Maryland has invented a very cool little end-run that would eliminate the Electoral College without need of a constitutional amendment.

    Here's how it works: States pledge their delegations to vote for the national vote-winner.

    BUT, it doesn't kick in until the states which have signed onto the plan total 270 or more electoral votes. (So for example, even though Maryland has signed on, they will send their delegates for whoever wins Maryland.)

    Thus far the states that have signed on are about 1/2 the electoral votes they need to get to 270. I think if Obama wins the electoral vote and Rmoney wins the popular vote, it'll be all over -- both sides will have done it once in recent memory, and with Democratic states having kicked off the plan, Pubbies will sign on when their guy gets the short end of the electoral stick.

    How cool is that?

    PFnV
  2. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,725
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +248 / 3 / -2

    No thanks.
  3. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Not cool at all. It's called the National Popular Vote movement and I doubt it will ever come to fruition. You think the residents of a state like Massachusetts would be happy sending their electors to a Republican based on how the rest of the country voted? No way, Jose.
  4. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,985
    Likes Received:
    178
    Ratings:
    +282 / 5 / -8

    How about a state like California? I believe they're signed on already.

    What's the downside? That the good people of Ohio and Florida (okay, and maybe Virginia,) won't dictate the terms of every campaign?

    It can't affect this election. Now tell me what you think about it in principal, and why anybody in his right mind would be against it. Massachusetts would have to vote for a Republican, Texas would have to vote for a Democrat, whatev. That's baked in, but it's baked in on both sides.

    PFnV
  5. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,564
    Likes Received:
    62
    Ratings:
    +106 / 7 / -10

    Yeah rather than amending the constitution the way the system has worked for 200+ years people look for a gimmick to circumvent the document.

    Pretty sad
  6. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    The current system has worked pretty well for a couple centuries now. This change, if enacted, would not solve the problem you purport you want to solve. It would simply shift the candidate areas of concentration from certain areas to other areas.

    Plus, this would create EXTREME incentives to generate voter fraud. I imagine states like CA and MA would report a vote tally of something like 99% democrat and 1% republican.
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2012
  7. jcdavey

    jcdavey Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    4,669
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    i always thought the electoral college was retarded and it should have been a straight up popular vote
  8. Nikolai

    Nikolai Football Atheist PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2009
    Messages:
    5,721
    Likes Received:
    146
    Ratings:
    +286 / 0 / -1

    #54 Jersey

    Leave it to Maryland to circumvent the Constitution.

    At least they're thinking outside the box, though.

    I'm not a huge fan of the electoral college, but let's work the process through proper channels.
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2012
  9. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,985
    Likes Received:
    178
    Ratings:
    +282 / 5 / -8

    I don't see how it's not the proper channels. My understanding is that the states determine which electors to send; the electoral college would hardly be able to circumvent the popular vote otherwise, by definition.

    If a state doesn't want to sign on, that's fine.

    The electoral college -- which Jefferson called a "blot" on the Constitution -- was designed to inflate the importance of states with small populations. It was a compromise more than 200 years ago, when the Delawares of the world thought they needed power vis a vis the Virginias of the world. To get them to sign on, all sorts of special privileges applied -- including diluting the vote of the more populous states.

    I don't know why the people living in those states can't band together and take back equal voting rights. And what's more, I don't see what about it contravenes the constitution (hence no need for an amendment.)

    It's elegant in its simplicity.

    PFnV
  10. Patradomous

    Patradomous Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2007
    Messages:
    2,962
    Likes Received:
    31
    Ratings:
    +71 / 0 / -9

    #87 Jersey

    Coming down to Ohio and Fla is a good thing as these 2 states are pretty much a cross cut section of the country plenty of diversity representing the country in every aspect.
    As opposed to New York and California being the dominate states to where candidates would only campaign.
    A candidate would do nothing but campaign and govern and legislate for the benefit of NY and Cal. if election were decided by popular vote.The middle and the south of the country would never see a candidate either in office or campaigning, and have no reason to appeal to that area of the country whatsoever.
    This is why precisely why the founding fathers went with the electoral college so the above would be avoided.
    Coming from somebody like you who howls and whines about fairness you would think you would be glad that we were a constitutional republic and not a pure democracy. But its really and always has been about politics with you leftist anyway.
  11. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    19,985
    Likes Received:
    178
    Ratings:
    +282 / 5 / -8

    How many wineries in Ohio and Florida? Are they both leaders in semiconductors? Salmon fisheries? Do both of them have long land-borders with Mexico, so talking to Florida and Ohio is a good way to determine whether we need that silly fence?

    Nobody has to campaign in California. Nobody has to campaign in Texas. Nobody has to campaign in New York. You don't find that in the least bit odd?

    "Dominate" is a verb, as in, "I dominate you whenever we get into a political disagreement." The word you want is dominant. It's also incorrect. What you would do is campaign in major metro areas anywhere. People aren't sitting around in one state saying "Hey, he was six miles over the border into the next state! When will he speak to my needs???" You can still speak in Boca to try to address their concerns about retiree issues. You can still speak in midwestern cities to address rust-belt concerns. The difference is, you'd also have to talk to people in Mass, New York, California, and Texas (just for example.)

    All the ad money's gone to 8 states. All the appearances are going to 8 states. In terms of total population, you'd much more likely get the candidates representing people's needs in their campaigns if you focused on the needs of the most people, rather than the needs of the states most in contention.

    In our current system there hasn't been any reason to campaign in the deep south (or Massachusetts) for some time -- just an example.

    No, actually, it's not. It was to kiss the buttocks of less populous states so they would ratify it. That's two different things. The very fact that the movement began in one of the original small states -- Maryland -- that insisted on magnified significance in the past, tells you all you need to know about the historic relevance of this particular aberration.

    Yeahhhhh, I don't think that's a very flattering picture you're painting there, Patro. You aren't personally insulting me, are you?

    To your point, such as it is, I don't think we should "vote" on things like inherent human rights, whether with or without an electoral college. I do think we should vote for president that way, precisely because it is more fair to the millions of voters who are ignored each year in favor of people in states that happen to be in electoral contention.

    This is a rather silly statement, since we are talking about a movement that won't even affect the 2012 election, and since there is no way to predict which party may benefit from the effect that got us the Bush Mistake in 2000. Obama could well be re-elected this cycle by precisely the same phenomenon. The same mechanism contributes to the Bush disaster as would apply to a reelection which I would favor.

    PFnV
  12. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Your so-called solution will do absolutely nothing to change that fact. It will simply shift the "nobody campaigns in..." areas from one region to another.

    Tell us, why should I support campaigns focusing on NY and California at the expense of America's heartland? I'd rather have the candidates fight for a diverse cross-section of states than exclusively in big cities.
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2012
  13. jcdavey

    jcdavey Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Messages:
    4,669
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    when i think democracy i think vote a vs vote b

    not a weirdo thing like the electoral college
  14. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,766
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +109 / 0 / -1

    #12 Jersey

    The founding fathers were afraid of the tyranny of the majority. The right fears it when they sense a shift in a more liberal ideology of the majority. The left will fear it if they see a similar shift. These things do have an ebb and flow over time. The Electoral College is one remedy for that. Remember when you leave things up to a popular vote you get somethings voted down that should not be. 2 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
  15. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    How do states- especially large ones like NY and CA- manage without the EC?
  16. PatsWSB47

    PatsWSB47 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    Messages:
    7,766
    Likes Received:
    67
    Ratings:
    +109 / 0 / -1

    #12 Jersey

    CA especially should be wary of the tyranny of the majority. In fact they had to legislate from the bench to overturn a ban on gay marriage won by a popular vote there. I'm not saying the EC is the perfect remedy, but I can see how it came about and there is some legitimacy for that line of reasoning.
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2012
  17. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,725
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +248 / 3 / -2

    People, this is the internet. The frickin internet!!!! :bricks:
  18. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    The red bold almost made me throw up in my mouth a bit. If it's true (and it isn't, of course), anyone with a mind elevated above the function level of a dog would move to Canada or Mexico immediately. Those two states are possibly the worst places in the country. Texas and Mississippi are closely behind. They bear no resemblance to the rest of this great country. THe only reason they are politically important is because they are heavily populated and socially and politically polarized. That does not mean they are representative of the country in any way except for ones you find convenient.

    The second line pretty much explains the deep thought and understanding that went into the first lie.
    Last edited: Oct 22, 2012
  19. IllegalContact

    IllegalContact On the Roster

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2010
    Messages:
    10,757
    Likes Received:
    133
    Ratings:
    +249 / 4 / -8

    LOL.......this will only succeed in having you libbies scream like b1tches when it doesn't work out for you.
  20. khayos

    khayos Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2005
    Messages:
    3,675
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I love how liberals keep saying how they fight for the little guy, those in the minority, then come up with b******t like this to strip away the power of the minority.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>