Unpopular Vote - Half Way To Eliminating the Electoral Cllege
I've been aware of this for awhile but did not realize it is being done so covertly. They even admit that “this is an effort to circumvent the cumbersome process of amending the Constitution."
National Popular Vote web site - http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
They refer to it as Electoral College reform. They are trying to eliminate the Electoral College.
National Popular Vote web site - http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/
They refer to it as Electoral College reform. They are trying to eliminate the Electoral College.
http://uselectionatlas.org/INFORMATION/I...
O.A.
O.A.
I also found this quote amusing:
"Although it’s not part of the current NPV plan, we could eventually be driven to adopt a run-off election, allowing the top two candidates to face each other in a second round. Imagine the expense, the length of the campaigns, and the legal controversies of such an approach."
People often cry that the BCS isn't broken, it just needs a playoff element. Humorously, one will be put into action soon, and in relevance to elections, there already is a run-off. That's what the electoral college is.
I get the feeling that you are not for the EC. If not, why not?
Hypothetically everyone in our state could vote democrat, but the electoral college vote would go to republican. Being high industry the people that provide the money and hold back door meetings will be of more influence than everyone making an informed vote.
I don't like the state making the decision that it thinks is "best", and it is the people that make that decision that make me leery of electoral college.
And that's the real point of contention. While there isn't a tyranny of the majority on the federal level, each state is a tyranny of the majority.
The original purpose of the Electoral College was to keep the President as far away from the public as possible. You would elect state legislators, who would elect Electoral College members, who would elect the president. This way, the president would not have to worry about public opinion; he would do what he thought was right.
I could be wrong about this; several people here claim there are penalties for voting against the popular vote, but that's not what I understand. In the primaries, yes, the delegates to the National Conventions for the parties are required to vote for whomever they pledged to for the first vote (if it's tied and they go into a second vote, then they can change their minds). But I'm pretty sure the Electoral College is fair game. I could be wrong.
There have been a few, but it has never changed the outcome of an election.
I'm not sure how you think that "it dilutes the vote."
Popular vote becomes corrupted, because it can be treated as a popularity contest.
Electoral college is probably the best alternative. I just don't want someone else making decisions for me.
Presidents attempt to bribe you and me for our votes now. The Electors represent their respective states and its population. Not the Federal government.
Votes are coming in they show fifty fifty for each candidate. How do you decide which side to go for?
People that will cause the most influence are the voters you are in greatest contact with. Friends, family, campaign contributors, and obnoxious activist assholes. Say you then side with the activist assholes and only 5% of the whole state agrees with what they say but they create more contact with you than any of the other influences. As soon as you side with them their individual vote of one just became 2.
"How do you decide...?" Electors don't decide. They pledge who they will vote for based on the popular vote results of their state. And there are consequences if they break their pledge.
Please read up a little on how the Electoral College actually works.