I find it funny how people keep using the word "democratic" when the reality is that we DON'T live in a democracy. We live in a republic that is based off of the Roman form of government.
I support this proposal 100%. But perhaps more insidious than the electoral college is the warping influence of big money on our democratic processes. Citizens United v. FEC,allows SuperPAC money to overwhelm the voices of ordinary citizens.
Bottom line is if you succeed but the president elect remains deeply indebted to his financial godfathers, the People remain unrepresented.
Let me say what Golisano can;t:Currently,Goldman Sachs owns both candidates.In a multi-candidate field this wouldn't be possible.They would have to bring in the Mossad to cut down the competition.
How will National Popular vote change things, all that would happen is candidates would campaign in more populated states instead of state with a lot of E.V's which is pretty much the same states. Plus don't forget George W. Bush no matter how terrible his policies were, which Gore is a globalist clown too, Bush won more states than Gore did.
This guy isn't very smart- First of all, the electoral college IS in the Constitution- Article 2 Section 1- Second; he keeps saying DEMOCRATIC, and DEMOCRACY- We are not a DEMOCRATIC country- Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government”
Senator mike bell DOES NOT SUPPORT NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE BILL! When I called to voice my concern..they had no idea what I was talking about..yet said NO HE DOES NOT SUPPORT SB-1024..IM ASSUMING HE IS OK WITH Tennessee BEING A FLY OVER STATE! Way to go bell, for Not representing the people!
If we ALL wore targets on our backs, the politicians have to work harder. I'd say anything that has that as a result is good thing. So bring in the National Pop Vote! They will have to remind themselves that at least they have a job to work hard in. It's time to make them earn all of those banquet dinners and rallies!
A direct popular vote is dumb because we need to protect the rights of states. Also a direct popular vote would create a multi party system creating gridlock. A two party system is necessary for the government to function. Lastly, a direct popular vote would create populations of swing voters and all political focus would be put on the most populous regions. Why campaign in Iowa when u can in California?
@Exthox The rights of states are protected by the constitution, not by the electoral college. America is a constitutional republic. That means that constitutional rights can't be taken away, even by majority vote. The electoral college does not protect anyone's rights. It only protects tyranny of the minority. A minority of swing states rule over the whole country and the other states are powerless.
@eyescreamcake Well your argument is empirically false. In the 2000 election Wyoming could have swayed the election under the Electoral College but with a direct popular vote this would be impossible. Wyoming is clearly not a swing state but controls an election. Are you advocating a plurality or majority vote for a national popular vote?
@eyescreamcake No its not. Al Gore didn't appeal to states just large swing populations...mainly liberal west and east coast voters. That's why he lost. I'm sorry we live in a democratic republic and not a pure democracy. ANSWER MY QUESTION. DO YOU ADVOCATE A PLURALITY OR MAJORITY VOTE?
@Exthox Haha what? You don't even understand the difference between plurality and majority, do you, dumbass? I advocate a plurality vote, of course. If we had majority vote then NO ONE would have won in 2000 because no one got an absolute majority of votes. Why are you even here, when you're obviously clueless about the subject?
@eyescreamcake Alright, its blatant you don't know half as much as i do about the system. I understand ten times more than you do. Im not mad at you for supporting this. Calling me a dumb ass is childish, kinda like a national popular vote. Can you give me an example of a successful democratic republic with a national popular vote. I'm here to prove you wrong. You fail to acknowledge the grid lock of a multiparty government. Grow up. Stop acting like you know everything.
@Exthox You can't even spell. Multiparty gridlock would be a great improvement over our corrupt "two-party" system. Anyone claiming our system is a good thing is either an idiot or a shill.
We are not a Democracy we are a Republic. At the very least states are consenting to this and it is not a Power Grab by Washington. I would at least changing it to a proportional system where if you get 60% of the Popular Vote of Your state. You get 60% of the Electoral Votes.
@MultiMurphdawg So pretty much you want a direct popular vote? Are you retarded? If we reform the system to proportional electoral votes then every election the popular vote winner, will win.
So if you go to the popular vote a farmer in rural Iowa paying property tax on many acres of farm ground will have almost no representation. While a person living in urban California living in an apartment paying no property tax will have the majority of the representation. The system now may have flaws but it does a lot better job of trying to give each state its equal representation based on population.
@Prowsky In a Presidential race candidates would no longer campaign in states with small populations because it would be a waste of time. In a popular vote the whole state could vote for one candidate and it wouldn't make much difference. I'm not suggesting that electoral colleges are perfect but they give each state representation.
@zollermichael Wyoming, the smallest state, has voted Republican since 1964, do you think either side will bother to campaign here when it is already clear who gets the state? Under the current system, whether or not you are a small or a large state doesn't matter. Presidential candidates will not campaign in either of you, unless you are a swing state, meaning the result in uncertain. So, the Electoral College does NOT give each state representation, just the swing states.
@eyescreamcake I didn't suggest farmers get more votes. I'm saying that states with larger populations will be the only states campaigned in under popular vote. Smaller populated states like Iowa could all vote for one candidate and it wouldn't even matter. This is why Candidates would no longer waste their time in these states. I am suggesting the reason we have electoral colleges is to keep states strong. Each state needs to be represented.
@zollermichael But farmers DO get more votes, and you support this. Currently, the only states that get any attention from candidates are the ones that are politically divided. If you live in any other state, you should just stay home because your vote is completely worthless and the candidates don't care at all whether you like them. This is ruining our country. With a national popular vote, the president actually has to please ALL Americans, not just the ones in a few swing states.
@eyescreamcake I don't appreciate people putting words in my mouth. How do farmers get more votes? 1-2 percent of the U.S. population. You can't say all rural people think alike or even all farmers think alike.
@zollermichael Why should farmers get more votes than non-farmers? Because they're a small portion of the population? Which part of "created equal" don't you understand?
@zollermichael "So if you go to the popular vote a farmer in rural Iowa paying property tax on many acres of farm ground will have almost no representation. While a person living in urban California living in an apartment paying no property tax will have the majority of the representation. The system now may have flaws but it does a lot better job of trying to give each state its equal representation based on population."
You think farmers should have more representation than city dwellers.
@eyescreamcake If the majority of the population lives in the city. Than the popular vote would reflect what the people in the city want. The minority (farmers) 1-2 percent that have a big stake in this would be counted out. Popular vote does not take this into consideration. When each state gets its say this helps sort out the diversities of every state. I agree this Electoral college system is out dated. That doesn't mean I have to agree to change to the Popular vote which has it's own flaws
@zollermichael WHY SHOULD FARMERS GET MORE REPRESENTATION THAN CITY PEOPLE!? Farmers don't get more representation just because they're a minority. Do all minorities get more votes than non-minorities? Everyone will just become part of a one-person minority then. Which part of "created equal" don't you understand?? ONE PERSON ONE VOTE.
@zollermichael Bullshit. The farmer and the urbanite will have EQUAL representation. All men are created equal. It doesn't matter how much land or money you own. Do you want to go back to the 1800s when only white male landowners were allowed to vote?
It's about fucking time. The Electoral College sucks. Like I've said in here a million times. Barack Cool will be President until January 20, 2017 12:00 pm est.
In my state the 2009 election all counties of the state Obama lost accept for the counties that contain the three large cities which occupy one small corner of the state. Because of this the electoral vote for my district was bundled together with those of the cities and in essence my vote was counted FOR bastard who now occupies the big chair. I think it is criminal to count my vote FOR the candidate I voted against. Democratic vote does not = a democracy. Long live the republic.
This is supposed to be a republic, but it's portrayed as a democracy, when in fact, it's a corporatocracy....... controlled, manipulated, and deceptive. Things won't change, until it falls. The U.S. is the new Rome, Only it's lifespan is much, much shorter.
A republic is a government that has a chief of state - a president in most cases. The method of election of that chief of state is the democratic process - majority rules. Look at a dictionary.
"Mob Rule?" These are people who are trying to claim or reclaim their country. Someone who doesn't want the people in charge would want things just the way they are. They would be happy to be minions of the big money interests over the rights of the people.
What a bunch of lies. The reason we have electoral college is so the candidates can NOT "game the system" as you say. And hey dipwad, we are NOT a democracy..we are a REPUPLIC! If you all want to know what it would look like if we changed to what this guy wants, look at Egypt, Syria, and all that is happening in the Middle East...."MOB RULE". Sorry but I think I like America just the way it is thank you.
It was cheaper & easier when the Queen used to pick the president.
How bout half the states have a designated animal choose the winner by going to the bowl of food with the candidates name on it & the other half of the states use the results of a native animal seeing its shadow.
The United States is not a democracy and was never intended to be. You'll notice that all the support for this comes from major metropolitan areas because it would in effect render the fly-over votes meaningless. A candidate could be elected by concentrating their efforts in the major population centers and get a majority without setting foot in Iowa or New Hampshire.
@bcossa1400 Bullshit. The United States is a democracy, and 75% of the population supports this, not just city-dwellers. Even if you could convince all 10 biggest cities in America to vote for you, you'd only get 8% of the vote. The National Popular Vote would eliminate the tyranny of the minority, making our voting system more fair and just.
I find it funny how people keep using the word "democratic" when the reality is that we DON'T live in a democracy. We live in a republic that is based off of the Roman form of government.
MasaruRyo 3 days ago
Tom,
I support this proposal 100%. But perhaps more insidious than the electoral college is the warping influence of big money on our democratic processes. Citizens United v. FEC,allows SuperPAC money to overwhelm the voices of ordinary citizens.
Bottom line is if you succeed but the president elect remains deeply indebted to his financial godfathers, the People remain unrepresented.
Join us after you succeed.
Best,
Sam Fedele, Move to Amend - Rochester
585 348-7264
salmonlinda 1 week ago
Let me say what Golisano can;t:Currently,Goldman Sachs owns both candidates.In a multi-candidate field this wouldn't be possible.They would have to bring in the Mossad to cut down the competition.
ImDavidGurney 1 month ago
How will National Popular vote change things, all that would happen is candidates would campaign in more populated states instead of state with a lot of E.V's which is pretty much the same states. Plus don't forget George W. Bush no matter how terrible his policies were, which Gore is a globalist clown too, Bush won more states than Gore did.
GreenandGoldChampion 1 month ago
This guy isn't very smart- First of all, the electoral college IS in the Constitution- Article 2 Section 1- Second; he keeps saying DEMOCRATIC, and DEMOCRACY- We are not a DEMOCRATIC country- Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution is quite clear: “The United States shall guarantee to every state in this Union a Republican Form of Government”
cookseywrko 1 month ago
@cookseywrko yeah but we vote democratically.
effigytormented 1 month ago
@effigytormented exactly you vote democratically in your state
cookseywrko 1 month ago
@cookseywrko He said the winner take all rules are not in the Con. He's right, that comes from the states (which he said pretty clearly).
XPK36 2 weeks ago
Senator mike bell DOES NOT SUPPORT NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE BILL! When I called to voice my concern..they had no idea what I was talking about..yet said NO HE DOES NOT SUPPORT SB-1024..IM ASSUMING HE IS OK WITH Tennessee BEING A FLY OVER STATE! Way to go bell, for Not representing the people!
ocoeesignz 1 month ago
These people fucked us up so bad over the last 50 years. Why do we still play by their rules?
Pernaetova21 1 month ago
If we ALL wore targets on our backs, the politicians have to work harder. I'd say anything that has that as a result is good thing. So bring in the National Pop Vote! They will have to remind themselves that at least they have a job to work hard in. It's time to make them earn all of those banquet dinners and rallies!
Pernaetova21 1 month ago
whats the point
obama romney are identical
at least barry has more style
MrTheBeast 1 month ago
A direct popular vote is dumb because we need to protect the rights of states. Also a direct popular vote would create a multi party system creating gridlock. A two party system is necessary for the government to function. Lastly, a direct popular vote would create populations of swing voters and all political focus would be put on the most populous regions. Why campaign in Iowa when u can in California?
Exthox 3 months ago
@Exthox You think the two party system is a good thing? That's the most idiotic thing I've ever heard.
eyescreamcake 3 months ago 2
@Exthox The rights of states are protected by the constitution, not by the electoral college. America is a constitutional republic. That means that constitutional rights can't be taken away, even by majority vote. The electoral college does not protect anyone's rights. It only protects tyranny of the minority. A minority of swing states rule over the whole country and the other states are powerless.
eyescreamcake 3 months ago
@eyescreamcake Well your argument is empirically false. In the 2000 election Wyoming could have swayed the election under the Electoral College but with a direct popular vote this would be impossible. Wyoming is clearly not a swing state but controls an election. Are you advocating a plurality or majority vote for a national popular vote?
Exthox 3 months ago
@Exthox Yeah, 2000 is a perfect example of why we need to abolish the electoral college.
eyescreamcake 3 months ago
@eyescreamcake No its not. Al Gore didn't appeal to states just large swing populations...mainly liberal west and east coast voters. That's why he lost. I'm sorry we live in a democratic republic and not a pure democracy. ANSWER MY QUESTION. DO YOU ADVOCATE A PLURALITY OR MAJORITY VOTE?
Exthox 3 months ago
@Exthox Haha what? You don't even understand the difference between plurality and majority, do you, dumbass? I advocate a plurality vote, of course. If we had majority vote then NO ONE would have won in 2000 because no one got an absolute majority of votes. Why are you even here, when you're obviously clueless about the subject?
eyescreamcake 3 months ago
@eyescreamcake Alright, its blatant you don't know half as much as i do about the system. I understand ten times more than you do. Im not mad at you for supporting this. Calling me a dumb ass is childish, kinda like a national popular vote. Can you give me an example of a successful democratic republic with a national popular vote. I'm here to prove you wrong. You fail to acknowledge the grid lock of a multiparty government. Grow up. Stop acting like you know everything.
Exthox 3 months ago
@Exthox You can't even spell. Multiparty gridlock would be a great improvement over our corrupt "two-party" system. Anyone claiming our system is a good thing is either an idiot or a shill.
eyescreamcake 3 months ago
We are not a Democracy we are a Republic. At the very least states are consenting to this and it is not a Power Grab by Washington. I would at least changing it to a proportional system where if you get 60% of the Popular Vote of Your state. You get 60% of the Electoral Votes.
MultiMurphdawg 3 months ago
@MultiMurphdawg So pretty much you want a direct popular vote? Are you retarded? If we reform the system to proportional electoral votes then every election the popular vote winner, will win.
Exthox 3 months ago
So if you go to the popular vote a farmer in rural Iowa paying property tax on many acres of farm ground will have almost no representation. While a person living in urban California living in an apartment paying no property tax will have the majority of the representation. The system now may have flaws but it does a lot better job of trying to give each state its equal representation based on population.
zollermichael 4 months ago
@zollermichael
They will have the exact same "amount" of representation. One Man, One Vote!
Prowsky 4 months ago
@Prowsky In a Presidential race candidates would no longer campaign in states with small populations because it would be a waste of time. In a popular vote the whole state could vote for one candidate and it wouldn't make much difference. I'm not suggesting that electoral colleges are perfect but they give each state representation.
zollermichael 3 months ago
@zollermichael Wyoming, the smallest state, has voted Republican since 1964, do you think either side will bother to campaign here when it is already clear who gets the state? Under the current system, whether or not you are a small or a large state doesn't matter. Presidential candidates will not campaign in either of you, unless you are a swing state, meaning the result in uncertain. So, the Electoral College does NOT give each state representation, just the swing states.
Prowsky 3 months ago
@zollermichael No, it does not give each state representation. It only gives representation to swing states.
eyescreamcake 3 months ago
@zollermichael Why should a farmer get more votes than an apartment dweller?
eyescreamcake 3 months ago
@eyescreamcake I didn't suggest farmers get more votes. I'm saying that states with larger populations will be the only states campaigned in under popular vote. Smaller populated states like Iowa could all vote for one candidate and it wouldn't even matter. This is why Candidates would no longer waste their time in these states. I am suggesting the reason we have electoral colleges is to keep states strong. Each state needs to be represented.
zollermichael 3 months ago
@zollermichael But farmers DO get more votes, and you support this. Currently, the only states that get any attention from candidates are the ones that are politically divided. If you live in any other state, you should just stay home because your vote is completely worthless and the candidates don't care at all whether you like them. This is ruining our country. With a national popular vote, the president actually has to please ALL Americans, not just the ones in a few swing states.
eyescreamcake 3 months ago
@eyescreamcake I don't appreciate people putting words in my mouth. How do farmers get more votes? 1-2 percent of the U.S. population. You can't say all rural people think alike or even all farmers think alike.
zollermichael 3 months ago
@zollermichael Why should farmers get more votes than non-farmers? Because they're a small portion of the population? Which part of "created equal" don't you understand?
eyescreamcake 3 months ago
@eyescreamcake I give up you can't accept the fact that I NEVER SAID FARMERS GET MORE VOTES!!! you did
zollermichael 3 months ago
@zollermichael "So if you go to the popular vote a farmer in rural Iowa paying property tax on many acres of farm ground will have almost no representation. While a person living in urban California living in an apartment paying no property tax will have the majority of the representation. The system now may have flaws but it does a lot better job of trying to give each state its equal representation based on population."
You think farmers should have more representation than city dwellers.
eyescreamcake 3 months ago
@eyescreamcake If the majority of the population lives in the city. Than the popular vote would reflect what the people in the city want. The minority (farmers) 1-2 percent that have a big stake in this would be counted out. Popular vote does not take this into consideration. When each state gets its say this helps sort out the diversities of every state. I agree this Electoral college system is out dated. That doesn't mean I have to agree to change to the Popular vote which has it's own flaws
zollermichael 3 months ago
@zollermichael WHY SHOULD FARMERS GET MORE REPRESENTATION THAN CITY PEOPLE!? Farmers don't get more representation just because they're a minority. Do all minorities get more votes than non-minorities? Everyone will just become part of a one-person minority then. Which part of "created equal" don't you understand?? ONE PERSON ONE VOTE.
eyescreamcake 3 months ago
@eyescreamcake Why should city dwellers have more representation than farmers?
zollermichael 3 months ago
@zollermichael They shouldn't. They should get one vote per person.
eyescreamcake 3 months ago
@zollermichael Bullshit. The farmer and the urbanite will have EQUAL representation. All men are created equal. It doesn't matter how much land or money you own. Do you want to go back to the 1800s when only white male landowners were allowed to vote?
eyescreamcake 3 months ago
It's about fucking time. The Electoral College sucks. Like I've said in here a million times. Barack Cool will be President until January 20, 2017 12:00 pm est.
WilliamHCarney 6 months ago
In my state the 2009 election all counties of the state Obama lost accept for the counties that contain the three large cities which occupy one small corner of the state. Because of this the electoral vote for my district was bundled together with those of the cities and in essence my vote was counted FOR bastard who now occupies the big chair. I think it is criminal to count my vote FOR the candidate I voted against. Democratic vote does not = a democracy. Long live the republic.
farmrdave 8 months ago
This is supposed to be a republic, but it's portrayed as a democracy, when in fact, it's a corporatocracy....... controlled, manipulated, and deceptive. Things won't change, until it falls. The U.S. is the new Rome, Only it's lifespan is much, much shorter.
sethzky77 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We are a Republic NOT a democracy! The Founding Fathers abhorred democracies.
Braveheart1745 10 months ago
A republic is a government that has a chief of state - a president in most cases. The method of election of that chief of state is the democratic process - majority rules. Look at a dictionary.
"Mob Rule?" These are people who are trying to claim or reclaim their country. Someone who doesn't want the people in charge would want things just the way they are. They would be happy to be minions of the big money interests over the rights of the people.
Phoglight 10 months ago
What a bunch of lies. The reason we have electoral college is so the candidates can NOT "game the system" as you say. And hey dipwad, we are NOT a democracy..we are a REPUPLIC! If you all want to know what it would look like if we changed to what this guy wants, look at Egypt, Syria, and all that is happening in the Middle East...."MOB RULE". Sorry but I think I like America just the way it is thank you.
ScrantonTeaParty 10 months ago
@ScrantonTeaParty You're an idiot. The system is currently gamed, extremely, and we're trying to fix it. You're supporting government corruption.
eyescreamcake 3 months ago
It was cheaper & easier when the Queen used to pick the president.
How bout half the states have a designated animal choose the winner by going to the bowl of food with the candidates name on it & the other half of the states use the results of a native animal seeing its shadow.
Lets give it a try.
FeelinTangerine 10 months ago 6
What about voter fraud?
bustaspecans 10 months ago
The United States is not a democracy and was never intended to be. You'll notice that all the support for this comes from major metropolitan areas because it would in effect render the fly-over votes meaningless. A candidate could be elected by concentrating their efforts in the major population centers and get a majority without setting foot in Iowa or New Hampshire.
bcossa1400 11 months ago
@bcossa1400 Bullshit. The United States is a democracy, and 75% of the population supports this, not just city-dwellers. Even if you could convince all 10 biggest cities in America to vote for you, you'd only get 8% of the vote. The National Popular Vote would eliminate the tyranny of the minority, making our voting system more fair and just.
eyescreamcake 3 months ago
If we had gotten rid of the Electoral College years ago, then that fascist, George W. Bush would never have gone into office.
catclaw357 1 year ago 5
WHY IS THIS VIDEO UNLISTED YOUTUBE= COMMUNISM
N8D0GGO24 1 year ago