CONFUSES THE AMERICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT WITH DEMOCRACY
For a handy dandy quick reference, here is what [AIR QUOTES] democracy [AIR QUOTES] looks like:
This on the other hand is what AMERICAN GOVERNMENT is supposed to look like:
Key differences in these images include the absence of severed heads and generally bloodthirsty whackballs.
BACK TO THE POINT:
The Peoples' Republic of Massachusetts has decided that they CAN'T GET OVER LOSING to George W to tha B soooooo much that they have decided that the state's electoral votes will automatically go to the winner of the NATIONAL popular vote in any presidential election.
Most intelligent people, (these are usually found without a D on their voter registration) understand that the whole point of the electoral college is to protect the interests of smaller states against undue political influence by larger states. Sadly, the state legislature in The Socialist Republic of Massachusetts has decided that there is no point in having their state properly represented in the presidential election.
At this point, I really have no idea what to say.
JUST KIDDING.
You knew I wasn't going to leave you hanging like that didn't you?
For real, all stupid people please PAY CLOSE ATTENTION: The Electoral College is meant to BALANCE NATIONAL ELECTIONS.
Why on Earth would someone visit any state other than New York, California, Florida, and Texas if the popular vote decided the election? I know you really like to rest your inadequately educated civics sensibilities on the idea that the United States is a democracy but democracies are what result when groups of majorities run around beating minorities down.
That doesn't sound American does it?
OF COURSE NOT.
One of these things is not like the other, one of these things just doesn't belong:
Democratic People's Republic of Korea
Lao People's Democratic Republic
United States of America
BIG HINT: The first two are soul-sucking oppressive communist regimes.
I leave you now to your own marination.
3 comments:
The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates, after the primaries, do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but now used by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Presidential candidates concentrate their attention on only a handful of closely divided "battleground" states and their voters. In 2008, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their campaign events and ad money in just six states, and 98% in just 15 states (CO, FL, IN, IA, MI, MN, MO, NV, NH, NM, NC, OH, PA, VA, and WI). Massachusetts (the 13th largest population state, with 12 electoral college votes) and 19 of the 22 smallest and medium-small states (with less than 7 electoral college votes) were not among them. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). In 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states; over 80% in nine states; and over 99% of their money in 16 states, and candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states.
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. It would no longer matter who won a state. Elections wouldn't be about winning states. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. Every vote would be counted for and assist the candidate for whom it was cast - just as a vote from a particular county is not relevant when a vote is cast in a Governor's race. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. The National Popular Vote bill does not try to abolish the Electoral College. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President, including ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote and 48 current state-by-state winner-take-all laws, have come about by state legislative action, without federal constitutional amendments.
The bill has been endorsed or voted for by 1,922 state legislators (in 50 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska -- 70%, DC -- 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota -- 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 30 state legislative chambers, in 20 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas (6), Connecticut (7), Delaware (3), Maine (4), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), New York (31), North Carolina (15), and Oregon (7), and both houses in California (55), Colorado (9), Hawaii (4), Illinois (21), New Jersey (15), Maryland (10), Massachusetts (12), Rhode Island (4), Vermont (3), and Washington (11). The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com
Well toto, I appreciate your well thought out response to my post here. Clearly you feel that the whole Electoral College thing doesn't really matter all that much and is not effective because of BLOCK OF STATS ON TRAVEL DURING PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS. Then my favorite part is the one where you toss out this:
"The National Popular Vote bill does not try to abolish the Electoral College."
No, not TECHNICALLY, but in REALITY it does, you're saying 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. It is true that states can do whatever they want with their electoral votes, but the fact remains that it is under the control of those states. What Mass has done here is basically say, "We don't care what our citizens say, we're just going to go with what the majority of the rest of you all say."
This is so irresponsible that I can't even make up a word that approaches within a good 478 lightyears of the concept, so I'll have to stick with boring "irresponsible."
Everything you said means nothing in terms of the main concern that most people have with the popular vote. Just because no one ever had campaign stops in Montana in the lead up to the election does not mean that we should just get rid of something we find inconvenient (in reality because our guy lost an election).
I stand by the concept that what is good for Wyoming is not good for New York. Groupthink is a dangerous thing. This national popular vote is a perfect example of it.
Post a Comment