For all intents and purposes, potentially the death of the electoral college?

http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3457/dropping_out_of_electoral_college/

Interesting, and at first glance rather likable.

I like it... tis how it should have been from the start.

Those idiot Founders. WTF were they thinking anyway?

Those idiot Founders. WTF were they thinking anyway?

Well i guess it made sense when states were so vastly under represented because of lesser populations and such, but times have changed, if America is to be united then the popular vote makes more sense. Every vote should count in the United States of America in my opinion.

So under this system if 100% of the people in Maryland vote for Candidate A, but Candidate B wins the national popular vote, then Maryland will give their electoral votes for Candidate B? This may be legal, but is it really counting every vote?

So under this system if 100% of the people in Maryland vote for Candidate A, but Candidate B wins the national popular vote, then Maryland will give their electoral votes for Candidate B? This may be legal, but is it really counting every vote?

It is in a way, because the National popular vote is every vote in the United States. Therefore if a candidate wins the National popular vote, they have more American votes then any other candidate.

All of them that voted for Candidate A in your example counted towards the National Popular Vote.

Be neat if they tried to push this stuff in California or someplace similar. Just funny how they always try to trick little states into giving up their voice.

Also dont get idea of how this would make a canidate somehow think it worth their time to go to Compton or something to campaign. They will still pander to the audiance they think will get out and vote for them and who will make a difference in their campaign.

At first glance it might give popular states too much power.

You want true popular vote then you count the votes no matter the state involved.

I'm not a big fan of the electoral college and it sure will change how the Electee's stump .

You want true popular vote then you count the votes no matter the state involved.
That's the goal of this.

If 270 electoral votes worth of states adopt this, then we effectively have a popular vote across every voter in the country, not just the ones that adopt the NPV.

I want a national Voter ID Act then. Anyone bitching about the hardship on immigrants and the elderly can kiss my ass.

I think this would be great and a national voter act would be too. Anything that makes sure each valid vote counts.

I want literacy tests at the polling stations, anyone who complains that these could be rigged to systematically disenfranchise people can kiss my ass.

In that "only white, male, land owners should be able to vote" sort of way?

Yeah! And I want ink-dipped fingers!

National Voter ID Act which would do what, exactly? Haven't heard of that before.

How about every U.S. citizen has a bar code tattooed on the neck, which can immediately provide voter registration info, drivers license, social security, etc. Bar code is scanned at time of voting, and if a bar code is entered twice into the system, that vote is rejected, and investigated for the fraud.

All immigrants are tattooed upon successful testing for naturalization, and infants are tattoed within their first year.

Or, maybe someone has an even more ridiculous idea. :rolleyes:

California was trying to get on the ballot to dole out electoral votes by who wins each county so not one candidate gets the entire vote.

California was trying to get on the ballot to dole out electoral votes by who wins each county so not one candidate gets the entire vote.

California was not trying to do that, the Republicans were pushing for this, and all abandoned it when it recieved negative press.

How about every U.S. citizen has a bar code tattooed on the neck, which can immediately provide voter registration info, drivers license, social security, etc. Bar code is scanned at time of voting, and if a bar code is entered twice into the system, that vote is rejected, and investigated for the fraud.

All immigrants are tattooed upon successful testing for naturalization, and infants are tattoed within their first year.

Or, maybe someone has an even more ridiculous idea. :rolleyes:

They could do that with a simple RFID tag embedded underneath ones skin. Its not that far from reality actually, especially for kids.

On another note, OMG I got spanked.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/POLITICS/01/04/iowa.analysis/t1home.clinton.topix.ap.jpg

On another note, OMG I got spanked.

http://i.l.cnn.net/cnn/2008/POLITICS/01/04/iowa.analysis/t1home.clinton.topix.ap.jpg

LOL :devil

If anyone has XM, I got my buddy Josh to talk about this on his radio show last night. They started discussing how if this passes a few big things could happen. First, instead of tours of entire states the candidates would simply hit the major metropolitan centers. They probably would stick to the major cities in New York, California, Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Michigan, Indiana, Florida, Ohio, Tennessee, Maryland, and Massachusetts leaving out a lot of states.
They also said this also probably would end up with our elections trending more liberal in the long run. I think it was Rover that posted a map 3 years ago of the population density and compared it with who voted for Bush or Kerry. Where there was light on a map of the US from space, people tended to vote for Kerry. Where there wasn't, they tended to vote for Bush. If the major metropolitan centers all already trend liberally, the liberal dollars spent there will have a greater impact because the conservative candidates will already be mentally ruled out by a large portion of their audience.

California's idea was similar. Their Senate votes (2) would go to whomever won the state, and their House votes (per county or district or whatever) would go to whomever won their district. Either way, its only fair if the entire country goes that route. Else you have the argument that Soandso won because they got a few votes from California which should have all went a certain way, but if Pennsylvania split their votes up that way it would have evened it out.

The same is true for the National Popular Vote. If all of the states don't adopt it, say only 200 points of votes worth, then you have huge possibilities of it being a spoiler when it wouldn't have originally.

I want a national Voter ID Act then. Anyone bitching about the hardship on immigrants and the elderly can kiss my ass.Can we go back to the idea of needing to earn full citizenship instead, ala Starship Troopers? Although I'd just as soon avoid military service. You've have significantly fewer voters, they'd all have ID cards, and just run the stupid thing off the popular vote.

If anyone has XM, I got my buddy Josh to talk about this on his radio show last night. They started discussing how if this passes a few big things could happen. First, instead of tours of entire states the candidates would simply hit the major metropolitan centers. They probably would stick to the major cities in New York, California, Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Michigan, Indiana, Florida, Ohio, Tennessee, Maryland, and Massachusetts leaving out a lot of states.
They also said this also probably would end up with our elections trending more liberal in the long run. I think it was Rover that posted a map 3 years ago of the population density and compared it with who voted for Bush or Kerry. Where there was light on a map of the US from space, people tended to vote for Kerry. Where there wasn't, they tended to vote for Bush. If the major metropolitan centers all already trend liberally, the liberal dollars spent there will have a greater impact because the conservative candidates will already be mentally ruled out by a large portion of their audience.
Looking at the stats, their attention and money is so disproportionately spread currently, it would still be an improvement.

I think the rural interests and others would be more powerful than you think, due to the fact that every vote of nationwide voting blocks would count in an NPV.

It would be dangerous to ignore any group.

The same is true for the National Popular Vote. If all of the states don't adopt it, say only 200 points of votes worth, then you have huge possibilities of it being a spoiler when it wouldn't have originally.
I have a feeling it will be easy to get the 270 to sign on. You don't need any powerhouse states to do it, just a majority of the currently neglected states (who have every motivation to do so).

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."