The people who vote in the electoral college are not chosen by a few elites. They are chosen by...YOUR VOTE! Yes, the electoral college does have some problems, but it was chosen to keep our country from tyranny and mob hysteria. The people who go to the electoral college will go only if we vote for them. Otherwise, a different group of people vote in the college. What you fail to mention is that very few electors change thier votes. Electors only vote how the people of their state tell them to.
In 2008, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all rule is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states. The fact that Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all rule is a reminder that the Constitution left the matter of awarding electoral votes to the states. The Constitution does not include the winner-take-all rule.
This debate of EC vs NPV detracts from the REAL reason the Founders created the EC, they wanted to "balance the powers" of the 3 gov't branches (to the point of impotence), PERIOD. At every turn, each branch has veto power in some way over the other two, AND, in the absence of Fed law or decree, the INDIVIDUAL STATES have the absolute right to determine what is best for ourselves. The USA means the United STATES + THAT is the reason for the EC & why EC will stay. The PEOPLE are the real power
1ST: USA is a REPUBLIC, a Representative Democracy, different from other countries. 2ND: "Electors" are NOT chosen "to vote FOR you", they simply represent your State + winning candidate at the national level. 3RD: we NEVER vote at the national level, we vote at State level for everything (there IS a reason). Watch "Electoral College vs National Popular Vote - the REAL difference". Electoral College actually insures "every vote WILL count" better than NPV! 4TH: losing votes count. GET INFORMED!!
The EC voters are real people. There was a news report about a young guy who was the youngest person ever to be chosen as an EC voter. Those individuals have no obligation to give their vote to the candidate who receives the most votes in their state....they don't in my state anyway....not sure if that is universal fact for all 50. The EC ensures that America keeps a strangle hold on The United States by rendering citizen's votes mute.
Every Candidate OKs the electors for each state where he is on the ballot. The electors for each state are usually chosen by his campaign staff or Party. FL has 27 electors for Obama, 27 DIFFERENT electors for McCAIN, etc. so any elector that doesn't vote for his own Candidate is in trouble with his party + is a FOOL besides, because EC electors are usually political aspirants + activists that want political office themselves. Cross the Party with your vote + kiss your political future goodbye.
If you want the details about how the electors are picked + their state's rules regarding electors go to "HowStuffWorks-AmericanHistory-electoralcollege" + click "selecting electors". Electors that do not follow their party are called "Faithless Electors" + some states actually have penalties for not voting for their Party's candidate. There is, however, no FEDERAL law requiring electors to vote for their Party's candidate + not all have over the years. Then again, "You Can't Fix Stupid"!!
I'm very informed. there are things that the electoral college called "swing states" and "lock states."
swing states are the ones that decide the election, plain and simple.
lock states are just that, LOCKS! a minority voter in one of these states (democrat in texas, all 3 million of them..or republican in california, all 6 million of them) MEAN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. THEIR VOTES HAVE NO CHANCE OF COUNTING IN THAT STATE. NONE. IT'S VOTER SUPPRESSION TO ITS EXACT DEFINITION.
#1 - Interesting opinion + one that is widely held currently in the USA. BUT, that philosophy is saying ANY vote that is not for the ultimate winner means nothing. Without minority votes you only need ONE vote to win. Minority (losing) votes keep the process "honest" since no-one knows who's going to win. Also, all elections have state + local questions that we vote on + these local Qs actually affect us more than Nat'l elections. So, the only way your vote doesn't count - is if you don't vote.
#2 - "Lock" states + "swing" states are different for EACH election. The southern states used to be "solid" for the Dems, now they are pretty "solid" for the Reps. Look at the swing states for 2000 & 2008 - they were diffent states. As sentiment changes in states so does the designation. Think about it, BOTH swing or lock states can decide an election. Reagan vs Dukakis = solid states decided - Bush vs Gore= swing states decided. There's no suppression, just more of one sentiment than the other.
it is known before the election happens based on polls and trends in voting what the "lock states" decision will be. true, the states that are "locks" change, but that's irrelevant. the very fact that there are lock states means that, in those states, the people that are part of the minority party can simply not vote and nothing would change.
AND winning side voters can also say "GORE is SURE to win, so there's no need for me to bother to go to the polls". Some say that is why GORE lost to BUSH. That is also why there is such concern with low voter turnout - just a few votes can swing the election - lock states be damned. That is why it is so dangerous for candidates to be perceived to have a "run-away" election "in the bag" vs a tight election. Too many "sure" elections have been lost to a "last minute" surprise. (Truman vs Smith)
I see it as more a factor of committment for a candidate +/or his stand on issues than any hope that the opposition won't vote. The "underdog" tends to fight a fiercer fight due to a stronger belief that they CAN win against the "unbeatable opponent". They still vote in a rain, ice or snow storm vs the the "unbeatable" guy's voters that say - "Oh, he's going to win anyway" + stay home warm and dry, because "my vote's not going to make a difference anyway". That's how "sure" elections are lost.
You say "the people that are part of the minority party can simply not vote and nothing would change" - the point, of course, is that only BY voting can they make a change. If they don't vote - nothing even has a chance to change.
Secondly you say "as long as the voters on the "sure" side go ahead and vote the minority voters have no chance of having their vote count." The point is that they still must vote in SUFFICIENT NUMBERS to overcome the opposition - otherwise THE OPPOSITION wins.
in a lock state THE MAJORITY outnumbers THE MINORITY by a huge margin. 60-40 or more isn't uncommon. overcoming that margin in California is millions, overcoming that number in DC is mathematically impossible for Republicans.
No republican vote coming from the District of Columbia has ever, as you put it, "HAD A CHANCE" to change.
Looks like we will continue to disagree. I say "IT AIN'T OVER 'TIL IT'S OVER" + you say "IT'S OVER BEFORE IT BEGINS". In military campaigns, poker or politics, history is full of instances of a hopeless position winning the battle + even the war. That's why some of us "continue to fight on" + "fight the good fight". The unexpected outcome happens more than people admit. It makes for an interesting world, doesn't it? Personally, as the minority, I would ALWAYS vote in one of your "lock" States.
If I remember correctly,13 states in 2008, 5 in 2004 + many would argue, 1 in 2000. It is always in flux + during the interim elections you start to see indications of the sentiment changing. That's politics + human nature + I see nothing wrong with it. The whole US population is certainly always involved - those that want to be, anyway.
Win or Lose ANY vote is never a "waste of time".
"An interesting world" is not entertainment, just celebrating the free exchange of different opinion.
yes, republican votes from the District of Columbia are ALWAYS a waste of time.
13 is a VERY generous number, considering Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida would decide the election. other swing state decisions are relevant, but diluted greatly after the large numbers of those 3.
@flylike1 With EC all votes are at the State level, with NPV States don't matter because votes are at nat'l level. In NPV, the election could be decided by the top 12 population CITIES. I certainly would not want that. Therefore, WY votes could be worthless like votes from other small states. In EC, votes are at State level + totals count towards the total that each State sends to the EC, thereby insuring fairer representation + indvl votes will count more than by NPV + preserving States Rights
"with NPV States don't matter because votes are at nat'l level. "
We're electing the president of the country, not the president of a state. A vote in Ohio shouldn't count for more than one in Kentucky. A vote in New Jersey shouldn't count for more than one in Massachusetts.
@flylike1 By voting @ the States level for a Pres, that insures the candidates will become knowledgeable about concerns for that region in any State they want to carry. With NPV candidates need only address city concerns, which lately has been a Dem strategy, it seems. Individual votes in any state don't count more than in another because States don't compete. Because votes are only at the State level, 1 vote is still one vote. I am concerned only about FL, CA can do what they want (+ they do).
" In NPV, the election could be decided by the top 12 population CITIES"
No it wouldn't, because the top 12 population CITIES have demographics as well. They're not all the same party. With NPV, ALL voters have equal value (1) whereas with the EC, ONLY the voters in swing states have any value.
@flylike1 Yes, some votes would still be from each party - BUT, urban votes are currently primarily Dem (80/20 or more). Simply look at the House district votes for 2010 nationwide. Great disparity where Dem votes are vs Rep. Since 6 states alone have the population to carry an election via population @ 80/20 out come, I stand by my comment. NPV would be decided primarily by urban votes + EC is decided by State votes, giving a broader sampling of the country. NPV vs EC is urban vs rural votes.
Nationwide the number of Democrats and Republicans are very close. Independents overcome that margin by far. You can't look at a small portion of a population and say that's what's most important.
The Electoral College does precisely what you say you're against. It makes the election about a few swing states rather than the population as a whole.
@flylike1 Dems are primarily in cities, Inds are sub-urban + Reps are primarily rural. While there is certainly spill-over, my point is still that urban voters are currently primarily Dems. NPV would focus on urban vs rural issues + since large pop centers would have a huge advantage, urban issues would be the deciding factor in elections. This is a mute point, however, since I don't believe EC will be elim anytime soon. States would kill any effort for it since NPV goes vs their sovereignty.
"my point is still that urban voters are currently primarily Dems."
I agree. This holds true for every state as well though. Pennsylvania is considered a swing state despite the fact that it holds far more registered dems than republicans. The reason is voter turnout in the big cities tends to be lower. "NPV would focus on urban vs rural issues "
If that's the case then they already do, merely at a state level instead of a national one.
" I don't believe EC will be elim anytime soon. States would kill any effort for it since NPV goes vs their sovereignty"
The debate isn't over whether it will be, but whether it should be.
The states that would be in favor of the EC are the swing states, since the campaigning lives there. Over 90% of the money spent in '04 was in just a few states, primarily OH, FL, and PA.
It creates an interesting scenario when a person becomes president who didn't even receive the most votes.
"6 states alone have the population to carry an election via population @ 80/20 out come"
Well I have the data on registered Republicans and Democrats in every state and the District of Columbia, and 80/20 is the most laughable proposition I've ever heard, ever.
Washington DC is notoriously EXTREMELY democratic, a republican has NEVER taken their Electoral votes. Even there, it's only 75/25.
If you don't mind, I'd like to see what numbers you're looking at to get "80/20"
"Therefore, WY votes could be worthless like votes from other small states"
Nope. 1 vote cast by a person in WY counts for how much? 1! That's right! And 1 vote cast by a person in NY, CA, FL, counts for how much? 1! What a novel idea!
@flylike1 OK, wrong term, not worthless, but insignificant like you said DC votes would be. Where States create reasonable + regional areas of the electorate, NPV splits the electorate into only urban vs non-urban + their individual concerns are vastly different. The proponents of the NPV want to eliminate States Rights which the EC was created to protect. You cannot make all voters "the same" since their concerns are largely determined by their region they live in.
"The proponents of the NPV want to eliminate States Rights which the EC was created to protect. "
Wrong. The NPV assumes that the people are qualified to elect the president.
Read a history book. The EC was a compromise between direct election of the people, versus appointment by the House.
It kept people who were largely uninformed, due to the fact there was no TV, Radio or Internet, and you know, they had to spend 16 hours/day farming to survive, from having too much of a say in govt.
We have the House and the Senate to "insure fair representation" for the large vs. small states. Electing the president is an entirely different issue. The presidency is the ONLY elected office where they're not elected by the people over which they govern.
Voting for the president by state makes as much sense as voting for senators by county. We don't. It's a popular vote
@flylike1 We are a Republic, aka a "Representative Democracy", we elect others to handle our affairs. Since we elect our House + Senate + EC reps by State, our local + regional concerns are considered. If we go the NPV route, any particular States concerns (small pop + rural, like WY) are unlikely to be considered because urban voters will always carry the day, they have the numerical advantage. You drastically change the dynamics of the electoral process. EC insures States Rights, NPV doesn't.
And as of 1917 we elected all of them by direct popular vote, except the president. The President is the president of the nation, not individual states.
"If we go the NPV route, any particular States concerns (small pop + rural, like WY) are unlikely to be considered because urban voters..."
Wyoming will be represented in direct proportion to their population, as will every state. The difference between the EC and the NPV: the NPV allows all of their votes to count equally, whereas the EC does not.
Millions of Republicans in California have their vote count for 0, and a few hundred thousand of them have it count for 3 in Wyoming.
Count more? What are you talking about? 1 vote = 1 vote, it can't get much simpler than that. That is precisely what NPV does, and precisely what the EC undermines.
Since when is getting the most votes not good enough?
@flylike1- EC votes are determined by State. State voting establishes geo areas of like concerns. NPV ignores regional concerns + creates urban vs suburban/rural concerns. Thru EC all regions of country are considered - State voting insures that. NPV would only address urban concerns because there are more uban voters. EC votes don't literally "count more" in that sense - they just insure State voter concerns are considered which NPV doesn't do. You are thereby ignoring a critical element of NPV
has anyone ever pointed out that we comment on these videos BACKWARDS you have to think backwards if you want to make more than 500 bites of info in a single comment you have to post the end of your text and then the first half
you tube wont let me post unless I type this very text>
my camera has not worked since i got this stupid conputer but i think that you tube wants us to video post and stop typing it is less consuming as each video is a redirect
o yeah \
you tube wont let me post unless I type this very text>
@navyseal100 what, exactly makes your electoral college vote the same way that you do? Popular Sovereignty has nothing to do with the electoral college, if that was the case, we wouldn't have one.
The real problem with the Florida recount in 2000 wasn't the hanging chads and butterfly ballots but something more abstract - the winner-take all rule which awarded all 25 Florida electors to Bush.
ME and NE choose their electors differently - only two statewide, the rest by congressional district. If FL had this in 2000 then any recount would have had only 3 electors at stake. Bush would have received only 14 electors when he needed 24 to win. Gore would have won the election.
This was a brilliant use of satire. X3
avalon441 3 months ago
…NOT EVEN THE RIGHT CENTURY! too funny!
ONLYRonPaul1 3 months ago
The people who vote in the electoral college are not chosen by a few elites. They are chosen by...YOUR VOTE! Yes, the electoral college does have some problems, but it was chosen to keep our country from tyranny and mob hysteria. The people who go to the electoral college will go only if we vote for them. Otherwise, a different group of people vote in the college. What you fail to mention is that very few electors change thier votes. Electors only vote how the people of their state tell them to.
mannaserved 4 months ago
The electoral college was set up so that the idiots in this video
don't have their votes counted.
Democracy is neither good in theory or practice.
Most people can't run their own life or figure out how life
'works' and yet, these same people choose who will lead
the country?
You see the problem?
fntime 4 months ago
Thumbs up if you liked the Magic 8-Ball. :o)
Seriously, though - you'd be amazed how often I've found those things to be correct in predictions... - plays spooky music -
fenrisfox 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
In 2008, candidates concentrated over 2/3rds of their campaign events and ad money in just 6 states, and 98% in just 15 states. The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
NationalPopularVote
mvymvymvy 1 year ago
In 1789, only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state's electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). However, as a result of changes in state laws, the winner-take-all rule is now currently used by 48 of the 50 states. The fact that Maine and Nebraska do not use the winner-take-all rule is a reminder that the Constitution left the matter of awarding electoral votes to the states. The Constitution does not include the winner-take-all rule.
mvymvymvy 1 year ago
i like the fact that they posted the ALL SEEING EYE at the end....... very significant
LiMaoTang 2 years ago
Shhhhh. You are no supposed to talk about that. We are meaningless comedy.
mobtelevision 2 years ago
This debate of EC vs NPV detracts from the REAL reason the Founders created the EC, they wanted to "balance the powers" of the 3 gov't branches (to the point of impotence), PERIOD. At every turn, each branch has veto power in some way over the other two, AND, in the absence of Fed law or decree, the INDIVIDUAL STATES have the absolute right to determine what is best for ourselves. The USA means the United STATES + THAT is the reason for the EC & why EC will stay. The PEOPLE are the real power
FlyontheWallinFLA 3 years ago
1ST: USA is a REPUBLIC, a Representative Democracy, different from other countries. 2ND: "Electors" are NOT chosen "to vote FOR you", they simply represent your State + winning candidate at the national level. 3RD: we NEVER vote at the national level, we vote at State level for everything (there IS a reason). Watch "Electoral College vs National Popular Vote - the REAL difference". Electoral College actually insures "every vote WILL count" better than NPV! 4TH: losing votes count. GET INFORMED!!
FlyontheWallinFLA 3 years ago
The EC voters are real people. There was a news report about a young guy who was the youngest person ever to be chosen as an EC voter. Those individuals have no obligation to give their vote to the candidate who receives the most votes in their state....they don't in my state anyway....not sure if that is universal fact for all 50. The EC ensures that America keeps a strangle hold on The United States by rendering citizen's votes mute.
dodgyhingst 3 years ago
Every Candidate OKs the electors for each state where he is on the ballot. The electors for each state are usually chosen by his campaign staff or Party. FL has 27 electors for Obama, 27 DIFFERENT electors for McCAIN, etc. so any elector that doesn't vote for his own Candidate is in trouble with his party + is a FOOL besides, because EC electors are usually political aspirants + activists that want political office themselves. Cross the Party with your vote + kiss your political future goodbye.
FlyontheWallinFLA 3 years ago
If you want the details about how the electors are picked + their state's rules regarding electors go to "HowStuffWorks-AmericanHistory-electoralcollege" + click "selecting electors". Electors that do not follow their party are called "Faithless Electors" + some states actually have penalties for not voting for their Party's candidate. There is, however, no FEDERAL law requiring electors to vote for their Party's candidate + not all have over the years. Then again, "You Can't Fix Stupid"!!
FlyontheWallinFLA 3 years ago
I'm very informed. there are things that the electoral college called "swing states" and "lock states."
swing states are the ones that decide the election, plain and simple.
lock states are just that, LOCKS! a minority voter in one of these states (democrat in texas, all 3 million of them..or republican in california, all 6 million of them) MEAN ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. THEIR VOTES HAVE NO CHANCE OF COUNTING IN THAT STATE. NONE. IT'S VOTER SUPPRESSION TO ITS EXACT DEFINITION.
flylike1 2 years ago
#1 - Interesting opinion + one that is widely held currently in the USA. BUT, that philosophy is saying ANY vote that is not for the ultimate winner means nothing. Without minority votes you only need ONE vote to win. Minority (losing) votes keep the process "honest" since no-one knows who's going to win. Also, all elections have state + local questions that we vote on + these local Qs actually affect us more than Nat'l elections. So, the only way your vote doesn't count - is if you don't vote.
FlyontheWallinFLA 2 years ago
#2 - "Lock" states + "swing" states are different for EACH election. The southern states used to be "solid" for the Dems, now they are pretty "solid" for the Reps. Look at the swing states for 2000 & 2008 - they were diffent states. As sentiment changes in states so does the designation. Think about it, BOTH swing or lock states can decide an election. Reagan vs Dukakis = solid states decided - Bush vs Gore= swing states decided. There's no suppression, just more of one sentiment than the other.
FlyontheWallinFLA 2 years ago
it is known before the election happens based on polls and trends in voting what the "lock states" decision will be. true, the states that are "locks" change, but that's irrelevant. the very fact that there are lock states means that, in those states, the people that are part of the minority party can simply not vote and nothing would change.
flylike1 2 years ago
AND winning side voters can also say "GORE is SURE to win, so there's no need for me to bother to go to the polls". Some say that is why GORE lost to BUSH. That is also why there is such concern with low voter turnout - just a few votes can swing the election - lock states be damned. That is why it is so dangerous for candidates to be perceived to have a "run-away" election "in the bag" vs a tight election. Too many "sure" elections have been lost to a "last minute" surprise. (Truman vs Smith)
FlyontheWallinFLA 2 years ago
as long as the voters on the "sure" side go ahead and vote the minority voters have no chance of having their vote count.
sorry, but voting in hopes of other people not voting, then maybe my vote would count...no that's not how it should work.
I agree, voter apathy is pretty dumb, if your candidate is favored to win in your state, or you're in a swing state, go ahead and vote.
the problem is that minority voters in lock states have no reason to vote- other than hoping other ppl don't
flylike1 2 years ago
I see it as more a factor of committment for a candidate +/or his stand on issues than any hope that the opposition won't vote. The "underdog" tends to fight a fiercer fight due to a stronger belief that they CAN win against the "unbeatable opponent". They still vote in a rain, ice or snow storm vs the the "unbeatable" guy's voters that say - "Oh, he's going to win anyway" + stay home warm and dry, because "my vote's not going to make a difference anyway". That's how "sure" elections are lost.
FlyontheWallinFLA 2 years ago
You say "the people that are part of the minority party can simply not vote and nothing would change" - the point, of course, is that only BY voting can they make a change. If they don't vote - nothing even has a chance to change.
Secondly you say "as long as the voters on the "sure" side go ahead and vote the minority voters have no chance of having their vote count." The point is that they still must vote in SUFFICIENT NUMBERS to overcome the opposition - otherwise THE OPPOSITION wins.
FlyontheWallinFLA 2 years ago
in a lock state THE MAJORITY outnumbers THE MINORITY by a huge margin. 60-40 or more isn't uncommon. overcoming that margin in California is millions, overcoming that number in DC is mathematically impossible for Republicans.
No republican vote coming from the District of Columbia has ever, as you put it, "HAD A CHANCE" to change.
flylike1 2 years ago
Looks like we will continue to disagree. I say "IT AIN'T OVER 'TIL IT'S OVER" + you say "IT'S OVER BEFORE IT BEGINS". In military campaigns, poker or politics, history is full of instances of a hopeless position winning the battle + even the war. That's why some of us "continue to fight on" + "fight the good fight". The unexpected outcome happens more than people admit. It makes for an interesting world, doesn't it? Personally, as the minority, I would ALWAYS vote in one of your "lock" States.
FlyontheWallinFLA 2 years ago
it ain't over till it's over, i agree. but the election is decided in 13 swing states, not by the population as a whole.
it's not "continuing to fight on" by casting a vote. it's "a waste of time."
i am fighting the good fight, fighting to get the archaic, corrupt system of electing the president abolished.
"the unexpected outcome...makes for an interesting world"
yes, it does. but i don't want to elect my president based on entertainment value. i want the person with the most votes
flylike1 2 years ago
If I remember correctly,13 states in 2008, 5 in 2004 + many would argue, 1 in 2000. It is always in flux + during the interim elections you start to see indications of the sentiment changing. That's politics + human nature + I see nothing wrong with it. The whole US population is certainly always involved - those that want to be, anyway.
Win or Lose ANY vote is never a "waste of time".
"An interesting world" is not entertainment, just celebrating the free exchange of different opinion.
FlyontheWallinFLA 2 years ago
yes, republican votes from the District of Columbia are ALWAYS a waste of time.
13 is a VERY generous number, considering Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida would decide the election. other swing state decisions are relevant, but diluted greatly after the large numbers of those 3.
flylike1 2 years ago
"Electoral College actually insures "every vote WILL count" better than NPV! "
I'd love to hear how that works. The National Popular Vote GUARANTEES one vote = one vote. How exactly does the Electoral College do this?
flylike1 1 year ago
@flylike1 With EC all votes are at the State level, with NPV States don't matter because votes are at nat'l level. In NPV, the election could be decided by the top 12 population CITIES. I certainly would not want that. Therefore, WY votes could be worthless like votes from other small states. In EC, votes are at State level + totals count towards the total that each State sends to the EC, thereby insuring fairer representation + indvl votes will count more than by NPV + preserving States Rights
FlyontheWallinFLA 1 year ago
"with NPV States don't matter because votes are at nat'l level. "
We're electing the president of the country, not the president of a state. A vote in Ohio shouldn't count for more than one in Kentucky. A vote in New Jersey shouldn't count for more than one in Massachusetts.
flylike1 1 year ago
@flylike1 By voting @ the States level for a Pres, that insures the candidates will become knowledgeable about concerns for that region in any State they want to carry. With NPV candidates need only address city concerns, which lately has been a Dem strategy, it seems. Individual votes in any state don't count more than in another because States don't compete. Because votes are only at the State level, 1 vote is still one vote. I am concerned only about FL, CA can do what they want (+ they do).
FlyontheWallinFLA 1 year ago
" In NPV, the election could be decided by the top 12 population CITIES"
No it wouldn't, because the top 12 population CITIES have demographics as well. They're not all the same party. With NPV, ALL voters have equal value (1) whereas with the EC, ONLY the voters in swing states have any value.
flylike1 1 year ago
@flylike1 Yes, some votes would still be from each party - BUT, urban votes are currently primarily Dem (80/20 or more). Simply look at the House district votes for 2010 nationwide. Great disparity where Dem votes are vs Rep. Since 6 states alone have the population to carry an election via population @ 80/20 out come, I stand by my comment. NPV would be decided primarily by urban votes + EC is decided by State votes, giving a broader sampling of the country. NPV vs EC is urban vs rural votes.
FlyontheWallinFLA 1 year ago
"urban votes are currently primarily Dem "
Nationwide the number of Democrats and Republicans are very close. Independents overcome that margin by far. You can't look at a small portion of a population and say that's what's most important.
The Electoral College does precisely what you say you're against. It makes the election about a few swing states rather than the population as a whole.
flylike1 1 year ago
@flylike1 Dems are primarily in cities, Inds are sub-urban + Reps are primarily rural. While there is certainly spill-over, my point is still that urban voters are currently primarily Dems. NPV would focus on urban vs rural issues + since large pop centers would have a huge advantage, urban issues would be the deciding factor in elections. This is a mute point, however, since I don't believe EC will be elim anytime soon. States would kill any effort for it since NPV goes vs their sovereignty.
FlyontheWallinFLA 1 year ago
"my point is still that urban voters are currently primarily Dems."
I agree. This holds true for every state as well though. Pennsylvania is considered a swing state despite the fact that it holds far more registered dems than republicans. The reason is voter turnout in the big cities tends to be lower. "NPV would focus on urban vs rural issues "
If that's the case then they already do, merely at a state level instead of a national one.
flylike1 1 year ago
" I don't believe EC will be elim anytime soon. States would kill any effort for it since NPV goes vs their sovereignty"
The debate isn't over whether it will be, but whether it should be.
The states that would be in favor of the EC are the swing states, since the campaigning lives there. Over 90% of the money spent in '04 was in just a few states, primarily OH, FL, and PA.
It creates an interesting scenario when a person becomes president who didn't even receive the most votes.
flylike1 1 year ago
"6 states alone have the population to carry an election via population @ 80/20 out come"
Well I have the data on registered Republicans and Democrats in every state and the District of Columbia, and 80/20 is the most laughable proposition I've ever heard, ever.
Washington DC is notoriously EXTREMELY democratic, a republican has NEVER taken their Electoral votes. Even there, it's only 75/25.
If you don't mind, I'd like to see what numbers you're looking at to get "80/20"
flylike1 1 year ago
"Therefore, WY votes could be worthless like votes from other small states"
Nope. 1 vote cast by a person in WY counts for how much? 1! That's right! And 1 vote cast by a person in NY, CA, FL, counts for how much? 1! What a novel idea!
flylike1 1 year ago
@flylike1 OK, wrong term, not worthless, but insignificant like you said DC votes would be. Where States create reasonable + regional areas of the electorate, NPV splits the electorate into only urban vs non-urban + their individual concerns are vastly different. The proponents of the NPV want to eliminate States Rights which the EC was created to protect. You cannot make all voters "the same" since their concerns are largely determined by their region they live in.
FlyontheWallinFLA 1 year ago
"The proponents of the NPV want to eliminate States Rights which the EC was created to protect. "
Wrong. The NPV assumes that the people are qualified to elect the president.
Read a history book. The EC was a compromise between direct election of the people, versus appointment by the House.
It kept people who were largely uninformed, due to the fact there was no TV, Radio or Internet, and you know, they had to spend 16 hours/day farming to survive, from having too much of a say in govt.
flylike1 1 year ago 2
"You cannot make all voters "the same" since their concerns are largely determined by their region they live in. "
Well there you have it. You don't think that all votes should be counted equally. As long as I'm clear.
flylike1 1 year ago
"thereby insuring fairer representation "
We have the House and the Senate to "insure fair representation" for the large vs. small states. Electing the president is an entirely different issue. The presidency is the ONLY elected office where they're not elected by the people over which they govern.
Voting for the president by state makes as much sense as voting for senators by county. We don't. It's a popular vote
flylike1 1 year ago
@flylike1 We are a Republic, aka a "Representative Democracy", we elect others to handle our affairs. Since we elect our House + Senate + EC reps by State, our local + regional concerns are considered. If we go the NPV route, any particular States concerns (small pop + rural, like WY) are unlikely to be considered because urban voters will always carry the day, they have the numerical advantage. You drastically change the dynamics of the electoral process. EC insures States Rights, NPV doesn't.
FlyontheWallinFLA 1 year ago
"we elect others to handle our affairs"
And as of 1917 we elected all of them by direct popular vote, except the president. The President is the president of the nation, not individual states.
flylike1 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"If we go the NPV route, any particular States concerns (small pop + rural, like WY) are unlikely to be considered because urban voters..."
Wyoming will be represented in direct proportion to their population, as will every state. The difference between the EC and the NPV: the NPV allows all of their votes to count equally, whereas the EC does not.
Millions of Republicans in California have their vote count for 0, and a few hundred thousand of them have it count for 3 in Wyoming.
flylike1 1 year ago
" indvl votes will count more than by NPV "
Count more? What are you talking about? 1 vote = 1 vote, it can't get much simpler than that. That is precisely what NPV does, and precisely what the EC undermines.
Since when is getting the most votes not good enough?
flylike1 1 year ago
@flylike1- EC votes are determined by State. State voting establishes geo areas of like concerns. NPV ignores regional concerns + creates urban vs suburban/rural concerns. Thru EC all regions of country are considered - State voting insures that. NPV would only address urban concerns because there are more uban voters. EC votes don't literally "count more" in that sense - they just insure State voter concerns are considered which NPV doesn't do. You are thereby ignoring a critical element of NPV
FlyontheWallinFLA 1 year ago
"Thru EC all regions of country are considered "
Thru NPV every single person is considered.
flylike1 1 year ago
"they just insure State voter concerns are considered which NPV doesn't do. "
Terribly sorry, but someones vote shouldn't count for more than mine simply by virtue of the state they believe in.
If you believe that, that's fine, but just say it that way, don't talk around it.
flylike1 1 year ago
has anyone ever pointed out that we comment on these videos BACKWARDS you have to think backwards if you want to make more than 500 bites of info in a single comment you have to post the end of your text and then the first half
you tube wont let me post unless I type this very text>
stomachknot 3 years ago
my camera has not worked since i got this stupid conputer but i think that you tube wants us to video post and stop typing it is less consuming as each video is a redirect
o yeah \
you tube wont let me post unless I type this very text>
stomachknot 3 years ago
I am trying a different text youtube hasn't let me post any other text except:
you tube wont let me post unless I type this very text>
stomachknot 3 years ago
you tube wont let me post unless I type this verry text>
stomachknot 3 years ago
omg...SO WHAT YOU STILL HAVE TO VOTE!..SO U UR CANDIDATE CAN GET UR STATES ELECTORAL VOTES....SO STOP BITCHING!
navyseal100 3 years ago 4
@navyseal100 what, exactly makes your electoral college vote the same way that you do? Popular Sovereignty has nothing to do with the electoral college, if that was the case, we wouldn't have one.
CodyAllenmusic 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The real problem with the Florida recount in 2000 wasn't the hanging chads and butterfly ballots but something more abstract - the winner-take all rule which awarded all 25 Florida electors to Bush.
ME and NE choose their electors differently - only two statewide, the rest by congressional district. If FL had this in 2000 then any recount would have had only 3 electors at stake. Bush would have received only 14 electors when he needed 24 to win. Gore would have won the election.
WhiteCamry 3 years ago
Then take your ass to Mexico then!
Ddubya77 3 years ago
How do you know this person is Mexican?
f23racer 3 years ago 3
I don't, I was just saying that that person should leave if this is such a terrible country.
Ddubya77 3 years ago
lol, very funny! We make the decision so you don't have to!
Shane72 3 years ago
Awesome! I'm so lucky I don't live in America!! :)
SoleroExotic 3 years ago
lolz
johkonut 3 years ago
love it!
lmcartier 3 years ago
lol
shayrgob 3 years ago