[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
My biggest problem with the legislation, although I support its overall goal, is that since I don’t live in a REAL swing state is that I am mostly spared from constant campaigning and bombardment by these bozos. .[/quote]
This times a bazillion.
We were in Ohio for a few days right before the election, every commercial was political.
So fucking annoying.
oldgulph… I don’t have time to address all that, lol.
Thanks, and I will digest the info as I can.
VT you and CB make some interesting points. I have never really contemplated changing this system.
I am enjoying the discussion and learning a lot.
It sounds like an article 5v convention
I feel like someone just dropped a civics book on my sack… Holy shit oldgulph, any way you can boil that down for the average meathead? Also beans I though that site was lame too but it was the only one that had a bulleted list of NC’s newest turds as it pretained to Art Pope… You guys cant actually be cool with guns in night clubs and bars…
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. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.
When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes? enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
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. 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.
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).
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO ? 68%, FL ? 78%, IA 75%, MI ? 73%, MO ? 70%, NH ? 69%, NV ? 72%, NM? 76%, NC ? 74%, OH ? 70%, PA ? 78%, VA ? 74%, and WI ? 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK ? 70%, DC ? 76%, DE ? 75%, ID ? 77%, ME ? 77%, MT ? 72%, NE 74%, NH ? 69%, NV ? 72%, NM ? 76%, OK ? 81%, RI ? 74%, SD ? 71%, UT ? 70%, VT ? 75%, WV ? 81%, and WY ? 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR ? 80%, KY- 80%, MS ? 77%, MO ? 70%, NC ? 74%, OK ? 81%, SC ? 71%, TN ? 83%, VA ? 74%, and WV ? 81%; and in other states polled: AZ ? 67%, CA ? 70%, CT ? 74%, MA ? 73%, MN ? 75%, NY ? 79%, OR ? 76%, and WA ? 77%.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes ? 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
My biggest problem with the legislation, although I support its overall goal, is that since I don’t live in a REAL swing state is that I am mostly spared from constant campaigning and bombardment by these bozos. I don’t think I could take 8 months or whatever it is now of constant mud-slinging and “truth misrepresentin’” (hell that’s why I come to T-Nation).
If they made a compact to elect via popular vote AND limit campaigning period to 2-3 months, and banned television adverts, I would fall over myself running to the polls to vote it in…[/quote]
i live in a swing state and i want to hang myself by april of every election year…
[quote]oldgulph wrote:
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. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.
When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes? enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
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. 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.
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).
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO ? 68%, FL ? 78%, IA 75%, MI ? 73%, MO ? 70%, NH ? 69%, NV ? 72%, NM? 76%, NC ? 74%, OH ? 70%, PA ? 78%, VA ? 74%, and WI ? 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK ? 70%, DC ? 76%, DE ? 75%, ID ? 77%, ME ? 77%, MT ? 72%, NE 74%, NH ? 69%, NV ? 72%, NM ? 76%, OK ? 81%, RI ? 74%, SD ? 71%, UT ? 70%, VT ? 75%, WV ? 81%, and WY ? 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR ? 80%, KY- 80%, MS ? 77%, MO ? 70%, NC ? 74%, OK ? 81%, SC ? 71%, TN ? 83%, VA ? 74%, and WV ? 81%; and in other states polled: AZ ? 67%, CA ? 70%, CT ? 74%, MA ? 73%, MN ? 75%, NY ? 79%, OR ? 76%, and WA ? 77%.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes ? 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
[/quote]
Alright who invited this guy…
Just kidding (kinda). Wow we have almost made it through 2 pages without me or anyone else referring to anyone as a “fucking idiot”…PWI record?
[quote]oldgulph wrote:
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. No more distorting and divisive red and blue state maps. There would no longer be a handful of ‘battleground’ states where voters and policies are more important than those of the voters in 80% of the states that now are just ‘spectators’ and ignored after the conventions.
When the bill is enacted by states with a majority of the electoral votes? enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538), all the electoral votes from the enacting states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states and DC.
The presidential election system that we have today was not designed, anticipated, or favored by the Founding Fathers but, instead, is the product of decades of evolutionary change precipitated by the emergence of political parties and enactment by 48 states of winner-take-all laws, not mentioned, much less endorsed, in the Constitution.
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. 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.
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).
Support for a national popular vote is strong among Republicans, Democrats, and Independent voters, as well as every demographic group in virtually every state surveyed in recent polls in recent closely divided Battleground states: CO ? 68%, FL ? 78%, IA 75%, MI ? 73%, MO ? 70%, NH ? 69%, NV ? 72%, NM? 76%, NC ? 74%, OH ? 70%, PA ? 78%, VA ? 74%, and WI ? 71%; in Small states (3 to 5 electoral votes): AK ? 70%, DC ? 76%, DE ? 75%, ID ? 77%, ME ? 77%, MT ? 72%, NE 74%, NH ? 69%, NV ? 72%, NM ? 76%, OK ? 81%, RI ? 74%, SD ? 71%, UT ? 70%, VT ? 75%, WV ? 81%, and WY ? 69%; in Southern and Border states: AR ? 80%, KY- 80%, MS ? 77%, MO ? 70%, NC ? 74%, OK ? 81%, SC ? 71%, TN ? 83%, VA ? 74%, and WV ? 81%; and in other states polled: AZ ? 67%, CA ? 70%, CT ? 74%, MA ? 73%, MN ? 75%, NY ? 79%, OR ? 76%, and WA ? 77%.
Americans believe that the candidate who receives the most votes should win.
The bill has passed 32 state legislative chambers in 21 states with 243 electoral votes. The bill has been enacted by 10 jurisdictions with 136 electoral votes ? 50.4% of the 270 necessary to go into effect.
NationalPopularVote
Follow National Popular Vote on Facebook via NationalPopularVoteInc
[/quote]
Shit thats all you had to say Im tired of swinging on Ohios nuts too
I’m in, even though it could prove problematic for Democrats in Michigan.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
I’m in, even though it could prove problematic for Democrats in Michigan.[/quote]
The red/blue line is pretty much the city lines in Michigan tho correct?
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
I’m in, even though it could prove problematic for Democrats in Michigan.[/quote]
The red/blue line is pretty much the city lines in Michigan tho correct?[/quote]
More like East and West or rural vs city/suburbs. The West coast is very conservative. Hard to really tell where Detroit ends and the suburbs begin if you don’t know the boundaries. From the center of Detroit there is 25 miles of sprawl radiating outwards.
The suburbs surrounding cities are very mixed politically and they are a huge populous. Rural is more conservative, and ironically they are the biggest recipients of assistance.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
I’m in, even though it could prove problematic for Democrats in Michigan.[/quote]
The red/blue line is pretty much the city lines in Michigan tho correct?[/quote]
More like East and West or rural vs city/suburbs. The West coast is very conservative. Hard to really tell where Detroit ends and the suburbs begin if you don’t know the boundaries. From the center of Detroit there is 25 miles of sprawl radiating outwards.
The suburbs surrounding cities are very mixed politically and they are a huge populous. Rural is more conservative, and ironically they are the biggest recipients of assistance.[/quote]
By number or percentage?
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
I’m in, even though it could prove problematic for Democrats in Michigan.[/quote]
The red/blue line is pretty much the city lines in Michigan tho correct?[/quote]
More like East and West or rural vs city/suburbs. The West coast is very conservative. Hard to really tell where Detroit ends and the suburbs begin if you don’t know the boundaries. From the center of Detroit there is 25 miles of sprawl radiating outwards.
The suburbs surrounding cities are very mixed politically and they are a huge populous. Rural is more conservative, and ironically they are the biggest recipients of assistance.[/quote]
By number or percentage? [/quote]
Sorry, but % of what. I believe the dems would lose the west coast and probably some of the wealthier counties like Oakland and Macomb, which border Detroit to the north.