New Page 1
home Steve Gleasons Website
Saints Report News Saints Super Forum Everything Else Board Political Discussion Board Fantasy Football Board Tech Board SaintsReport Affiliate Merchandise Gameday Board Behind the Levee New Orleans Hornets Board Twitter Outdoor Boards Video Games Board Smack Board Music Board College Sports Board SR Live Chat Room Contribute to our site costs Become a subscribing SR member


Google Ads
Latest Poll
Grade the Saints 2014 Draft
A
B
C
D
F
Sponsored Ads


reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-25-2012, 07:45 AM   #1
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Age: 38
Posts: 5,423
peresich is a name known to allperesich is a name known to all
peresich is a name known to allperesich is a name known to allperesich is a name known to allperesich is a name known to allperesich is a name known to allperesich is a name known to allperesich is a name known to allperesich is a name known to allperesich is a name known to allperesich is a name known to all
Thread Starter
National Popular Vote Bill

I just got an email from an activism group that I am curious about. It is about the National Popular Vote Bill. Here is a direct quote from a chunk of the email:

"The National Popular Vote Bill would mean that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC) would become President. The current system has elected a second-place candidate in 4 of 56 presidential elections."

Essentially, the email is a call to action to push the Alabama state legislature to adopt a resolution that would state that all of Alabama's electoral college votes will go to the candidate that wins the national popular vote.

I am torn on where to fall on this one. Is the current electoral college system the fairest way to handle elections?

I understand that it is supposed to help prevent a tyranny of the masses situation and help distribute some of the power away from larger metropolitan areas. However, it does diminish the feeling of usefulness of a single vote, especially in solid red/blue states. A vote for a Democratic candidate in Alabama is essentially pissing in the wind currently.

I really can't decide how I feel about this. Anyone have a good argument for either side of the coin?
peresich is offline Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Old 01-25-2012, 10:05 AM   #2
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: SW La
Age: 46
Posts: 1,091
diehard is on a distinguished roaddiehard is on a distinguished roaddiehard is on a distinguished roaddiehard is on a distinguished roaddiehard is on a distinguished roaddiehard is on a distinguished roaddiehard is on a distinguished road
I think candidates would marginalize more than half the states even more than they already do.
diehard is offline Reply With Quote


2 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
Old 01-25-2012, 10:09 AM   #3
you must chill
 
superchuck500's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Metairie- Mandeville (MHS) - Uptown - Alexandria VA
Age: 41
Posts: 23,255
superchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Member
superchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Member

Awards Showcase
Outstanding Community Service Award 
Total Awards: 1

It's interesting how they're seeking to accomplish it.

A national process that elects the candidate that carries the national popular vote, would have to be a constitutional amendment, not just a standard bill to law. This is because the electoral process is found in Article 2, Section 1, and in the 12th Amendment - and the only way to change that is by further amendment. And of course, constitutional amendments are quite a process and in today's climate, it's hard to imagine there would ever be 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of states to ratify. A national popular system is thus highly unlikely, in part, due to the fact that (1) the framers deliberately chose against such a system, and (2) there are still good reasons for their choice.

But so to avoid this process, it instead seeks to get each state to adopt a process that requires the state's electoral votes be determined solely by the national popular vote. Interesting. I suspect that most states' electoral process is found in their own state constitutions - so that may also require a rigorous amendment procees that would certainly have opponents. And it would have to be something that would be repeated successfully in each state.

I guess this approach allows for incrementalism. Any state that adopts it would be an incremental success moving toward the ultimate goal. The problem with the approach, however, is that unless many states do it at once (very very unlikely) you'd have a situation where the voters in a single state (Alabama for instance) are basically giving up the local importance of their vote. They're abdicating in a sense, their electoral prerogative to the results of the greater national vote. It's quite a sacrifice if viewed at the singular, state-by-state level . . . which is what this approach calls for.

I get your point about the triviality of a democratic vote in a state like Alabama under the current system. But the alternative approach advocated in that email is a system wherein Alabama's electors (a process required under the Constitution) would have to cast their votes for a Democrat to be President simply because that candidate won the national popular vote . . . even though Alabama was 70% (for instance) in favor of the Republican. If no other or few other states are doing the same thing, Alabama has basically taken itself out of the electoral process that everyone else is still participating in. Is this really in the state's interest?

Unless most or all states were on board for this at the same time, it seems far too great an abdication of local/state interest in the greater prevailing process. And if most or all the states were willing to do it at once, why not pursue a national constitutional amendment to go to a straight popular vote process?

We are a federal system. The states do have important roles in that system - fundamentally. Tinkering with it gets real tricky.
superchuck500 is offline Reply With Quote


3 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
Old 01-25-2012, 01:23 PM   #4
All-Pro
 
drob8785's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: DC
Posts: 1,412
drob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famer
drob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famer
Both the popular vote and the electoral college have their upsides and their downsides.

I think the option advocated in that email is the wrong way to go about doing it. Any reform should be done to better reflect the will of the citizens of the states. This Bill would do the opposite by tying the electoral votes to the national popular vote winner rather than the state popular vote winner.

My favorite reform is to allocate electoral votes by proportion of votes received in the state, with the two "senate" electoral votes going to the winner of that state's popular vote. You could either tie the electoral votes directly to the Congressional districts, or you can leave them "loose" and award them by pure percentages [so if the Democratic candidate in LA gets 45% of the state's popular vote, then he'd get 3 electoral votes (45% of 6 = 2.7), with the Republican getting 5 (55% of 6 = 3.3 + 2 for winning the state's overall popular vote)].
drob8785 is offline Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Old 01-25-2012, 01:36 PM   #5
Subscribing Member

 
champ76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 7,915
champ76 40K Burger Clubchamp76 40K Burger Clubchamp76 40K Burger Clubchamp76 40K Burger Club
champ76 40K Burger Clubchamp76 40K Burger Clubchamp76 40K Burger Clubchamp76 40K Burger Clubchamp76 40K Burger Clubchamp76 40K Burger Clubchamp76 40K Burger Clubchamp76 40K Burger Clubchamp76 40K Burger Clubchamp76 40K Burger Clubchamp76 40K Burger Club
We've had good presidents and bad presidents. We've had 52 popular vote winners win the electoral college, and four not. Really, if it ain't broke, why fix it?

And I agree with superchuck.

Quote:
Originally Posted by superchuck500 View Post
We are a federal system. The states do have important roles in that system - fundamentally. Tinkering with it gets real tricky.
This has more to do with leftover hard feelings from 2000. Time to get over it.
champ76 is offline Reply With Quote


1 out of 2 members found this post helpful.
Old 01-25-2012, 02:17 PM   #6
you must chill
 
superchuck500's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Metairie- Mandeville (MHS) - Uptown - Alexandria VA
Age: 41
Posts: 23,255
superchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Member
superchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Member

Awards Showcase
Outstanding Community Service Award 
Total Awards: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by drob8785 View Post
Both the popular vote and the electoral college have their upsides and their downsides.

I think the option advocated in that email is the wrong way to go about doing it. Any reform should be done to better reflect the will of the citizens of the states. This Bill would do the opposite by tying the electoral votes to the national popular vote winner rather than the state popular vote winner.

My favorite reform is to allocate electoral votes by proportion of votes received in the state, with the two "senate" electoral votes going to the winner of that state's popular vote. You could either tie the electoral votes directly to the Congressional districts, or you can leave them "loose" and award them by pure percentages [so if the Democratic candidate in LA gets 45% of the state's popular vote, then he'd get 3 electoral votes (45% of 6 = 2.7), with the Republican getting 5 (55% of 6 = 3.3 + 2 for winning the state's overall popular vote)].
Apparently, every state but Alaska and Maine has a "winner take all" approach mandated by state law. That means that the electors are required to cast all of the state's votes for whichever candidate wins the popular vote in that state.
superchuck500 is offline Reply With Quote


Old 01-25-2012, 02:23 PM   #7
All-Pro
 
drob8785's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: DC
Posts: 1,412
drob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famer
drob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famer
Quote:
Originally Posted by superchuck500 View Post
Apparently, every state but Alaska and Maine has a "winner take all" approach mandated by state law. That means that the electors are required to cast all of the state's votes for whichever candidate wins the popular vote in that state.
It's actually Maine and Nebraska that are the oddities - they use the first system I suggested (the "Congressional District Method").

Maine has used the system since 1972, and Nebraska since 1992. Interestingly enough, the only time that either state had a "split" electoral votes was in 2008, when Obama won Nebraska's 2nd District, which is includes Omaha, but lost the state-wide popular vote and the other two districts to McCain.
drob8785 is offline Reply With Quote


Old 01-25-2012, 02:31 PM   #8
Shaw 1988, NYIT 2009
 
Jeff Miller's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Vancouver, WA
Age: 44
Posts: 15,861
Blog Entries: 4
Jeff Miller is a true SaintJeff Miller is a true SaintJeff Miller is a true Saint
Jeff Miller is a true SaintJeff Miller is a true SaintJeff Miller is a true SaintJeff Miller is a true SaintJeff Miller is a true SaintJeff Miller is a true SaintJeff Miller is a true SaintJeff Miller is a true SaintJeff Miller is a true SaintJeff Miller is a true SaintJeff Miller is a true SaintJeff Miller is a true Saint

Awards Showcase
Audio/Video/News Contributions Award 
Total Awards: 1

As long as we have issues like the whole dallas cowboys roster being registered to vote in Nevada in a presidential election, i can't embrace a popular vote. Voter registration just isn't reliable on a national scale.

I would however support doing away with the winner take all by state aspect of the electorial system. The electorial votes by state should be split based on the popular vote by that state. A candidate should not get all the votes for a state by only getting 51% of the popular vote in that state.
Jeff Miller is offline Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Old 01-25-2012, 02:37 PM   #9
Hall-of-Famer
 
TechDawg09's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,814
TechDawg09 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerTechDawg09 is an Sr.com Hall of Famer
TechDawg09 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerTechDawg09 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerTechDawg09 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerTechDawg09 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerTechDawg09 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerTechDawg09 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerTechDawg09 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerTechDawg09 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerTechDawg09 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerTechDawg09 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerTechDawg09 is an Sr.com Hall of FamerTechDawg09 is an Sr.com Hall of Famer
Does it really matter how we choose between Lying ******* (R) and Lying ******* (D)?
__________________
TechDawg09 is offline Reply With Quote


2 out of 3 members found this post helpful.
Old 01-25-2012, 02:48 PM   #10
you must chill
 
superchuck500's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Metairie- Mandeville (MHS) - Uptown - Alexandria VA
Age: 41
Posts: 23,255
superchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Member
superchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Membersuperchuck500 Prestigious Gold Club Member

Awards Showcase
Outstanding Community Service Award 
Total Awards: 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by drob8785 View Post
It's actually Maine and Nebraska that are the oddities - they use the first system I suggested (the "Congressional District Method").
Indeed - I think I read that it was Maine and Nebraska and then between the time of reading that and posting, my brain converted Nebraska to Alaska. Ha!
superchuck500 is offline Reply With Quote


1 out of 1 members found this post helpful.
Old 01-25-2012, 06:17 PM   #11
...from a chicken, bugwit
 
blackadder's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 19,602
blackadder 40K Burger Clubblackadder 40K Burger Clubblackadder 40K Burger Clubblackadder 40K Burger Clubblackadder 40K Burger Clubblackadder 40K Burger Club
blackadder 40K Burger Clubblackadder 40K Burger Club
Quote:
Originally Posted by peresich View Post
I just got an email from an activism group that I am curious about. It is about the National Popular Vote Bill. Here is a direct quote from a chunk of the email:

"The National Popular Vote Bill would mean that the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC) would become President. The current system has elected a second-place candidate in 4 of 56 presidential elections."

Essentially, the email is a call to action to push the Alabama state legislature to adopt a resolution that would state that all of Alabama's electoral college votes will go to the candidate that wins the national popular vote.

I am torn on where to fall on this one. Is the current electoral college system the fairest way to handle elections?

I understand that it is supposed to help prevent a tyranny of the masses situation and help distribute some of the power away from larger metropolitan areas. However, it does diminish the feeling of usefulness of a single vote, especially in solid red/blue states. A vote for a Democratic candidate in Alabama is essentially pissing in the wind currently.

I really can't decide how I feel about this. Anyone have a good argument for either side of the coin?
All those who favor Federal supremacy and super activist Federal government should go ahead and support this.

There is no reason to weight by State. What's the point? State sovereignty is just a something to pay lip service to. It's increasingly irrelevant and accordingly the Electoral College is obsolete, just like some of the neocons argue the Constitution itself is obsolete.
__________________
"All you have to do is to tell them (the people) they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country." - Hermann Goering
blackadder is offline Reply With Quote


Old 01-25-2012, 06:43 PM   #12
ALL-MADDEN TEAM
 
Saintslfc13's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Age: 24
Posts: 1,688
Saintslfc13 is marching in
Saintslfc13 is marching inSaintslfc13 is marching inSaintslfc13 is marching inSaintslfc13 is marching inSaintslfc13 is marching inSaintslfc13 is marching inSaintslfc13 is marching inSaintslfc13 is marching inSaintslfc13 is marching inSaintslfc13 is marching inSaintslfc13 is marching in
Quote:
Originally Posted by drob8785 View Post
Both the popular vote and the electoral college have their upsides and their downsides.

I think the option advocated in that email is the wrong way to go about doing it. Any reform should be done to better reflect the will of the citizens of the states. This Bill would do the opposite by tying the electoral votes to the national popular vote winner rather than the state popular vote winner.

My favorite reform is to allocate electoral votes by proportion of votes received in the state, with the two "senate" electoral votes going to the winner of that state's popular vote. You could either tie the electoral votes directly to the Congressional districts, or you can leave them "loose" and award them by pure percentages [so if the Democratic candidate in LA gets 45% of the state's popular vote, then he'd get 3 electoral votes (45% of 6 = 2.7), with the Republican getting 5 (55% of 6 = 3.3 + 2 for winning the state's overall popular vote)].
This is probably the best idea for electoral reform I've read in quite some time. Certainly better than the idea of a National Popular Vote.
Saintslfc13 is offline Reply With Quote


Old 01-25-2012, 07:10 PM   #13
All-Pro
 
drob8785's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: DC
Posts: 1,412
drob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famer
drob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famerdrob8785 is an Sr.com Hall of Famer
Quote:
Originally Posted by Saintslfc13 View Post
This is probably the best idea for electoral reform I've read in quite some time. Certainly better than the idea of a National Popular Vote.
I think the Congressional District Method is the right balance between representing the will of the people AND providing an equalizing force between the states (while actually simultaneously increasing the President's "political capital" that he carries away from the election).

Unfortunately there are a lot of temptations for both parties to keep the current system. The GOP, which controls both houses and the governorship in Pennsylvania floated this idea last year, and it fizzled out, despite the fact that PA has gone blue five straight elections. They had complete control of the state government and the incentive to do it (under the proposed bill, Obama would have won only 11 EVs rather than the 21 he really did) and yet they still couldn't muster the political power to do it.

The NYTimes' excellent blog, FiveThirtyEight, covered the issues very well:
Pennsylvania Electoral College Plan Could Backfire on G.O.P. - NYTimes.com
drob8785 is offline Reply With Quote


Old 01-25-2012, 07:15 PM   #14
NO MA'AM
 
zeetes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: yellow brick road
Age: 35
Posts: 8,017
zeetes 50K Burger Clubzeetes 50K Burger Clubzeetes 50K Burger Clubzeetes 50K Burger Clubzeetes 50K Burger Clubzeetes 50K Burger Clubzeetes 50K Burger Club
zeetes 50K Burger Clubzeetes 50K Burger Clubzeetes 50K Burger Clubzeetes 50K Burger Clubzeetes 50K Burger Clubzeetes 50K Burger Clubzeetes 50K Burger Clubzeetes 50K Burger Clubzeetes 50K Burger Clubzeetes 50K Burger Clubzeetes 50K Burger Clubzeetes 50K Burger Clubzeetes 50K Burger Club
Quote:
Originally Posted by drob8785 View Post
I think the Congressional District Method is the right balance between representing the will of the people AND providing an equalizing force between the states (while actually simultaneously increasing the President's "political capital" that he carries away from the election).

Unfortunately there are a lot of temptations for both parties to keep the current system. The GOP, which controls both houses and the governorship in Pennsylvania floated this idea last year, and it fizzled out, despite the fact that PA has gone blue five straight elections. They had complete control of the state government and the incentive to do it (under the proposed bill, Obama would have won only 11 EVs rather than the 21 he really did) and yet they still couldn't muster the political power to do it.

The NYTimes' excellent blog, FiveThirtyEight, covered the issues very well:
Pennsylvania Electoral College Plan Could Backfire on G.O.P. - NYTimes.com
it's far from a perfect system, but i do agree.

Hear ye, hear ye! Pirates ahoy!
zeetes is offline Reply With Quote


reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:39 PM.



Saintsreport.com - New Orleans Saints News, Info & Community! All marks, logos and images related to the Saints are the property of the New Orleans Saints, the NFL and NFL Properties. We are in no way affiliated with the New Orleans Saints or the NFL. All commentary and original artwork, 1997-2013 SaintsReport.com, owned and operated by Andrus Whitewing, DBA Saints Report,LLC. All rights reserved. Copying of original columns prohibited without a return link and credit given. Teasing articles is ok.



Some of the Photos and pictures used throughout the site are copyright Michael C. Hebert and are used with the permission of Michael C. Hebert and the New Orleans Saints.




vBulletin Optimisation by vB Optimise (Reduced on this page: MySQL 2.86%).

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0