Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 18, 2024, 10:35:45 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Process (Moderator: muon2)
  Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 16
Author Topic: Major campaign underway to nullify Electoral College  (Read 157094 times)
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: February 10, 2008, 01:07:47 AM »

it was a purely partisan issue and Dems saw it as an advantage in the next one or two cycles and that was all that mattered.

Come on, you know that this is trivializing this whole issue. If there had been a uniform 2.2% swing to Kerry in the 2004 election, he would have won Ohio and the election while losing the popular vote. Nixon tried to get rid of the popular vote. This current Interstate Compact campaign has former Senator Garn R-UT,  former Senator Durenberger R-MN, former Rep. John Buchanan R-AL, former Rep. Tom Campbell R-CA, and Republican and then Independent John Anderson for it.


I understand the national interest in the plan that often brings bipartisan groups together. If there was a threshold for success, like the 40% level originally proposed for the amendment, I could view this idea favorably.

However, I can tell you that in the IL legislature it was a partisan vote seen as one with partisan advantage. There are only a handful of votes each year that split the House exactly along partisan lines. When it does you can be certain that it was viewed in terms of partisan advantage, not based on national policy.

A cynic might also note that a legislature could rescind participation. If the polls showed a year like 2004 in the offing, with the possibility of a D win in the EC while losing the popular vote, it wouldn't be surprising if IL backed out of the compact.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: April 07, 2008, 09:18:45 PM »

He waited until the last possible day, but Gov Blagojevich signed the NPV bill today. That adds IL to MD and NJ for a total of 46 committed EV to the compact.
Logged
zorkpolitics
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,188
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: May 09, 2008, 09:46:23 PM »

Hawaii has now passed the bill, for a total of 50 EV from four states, 200 EV left to go. 
The four states  that have passed the compact are solidly Democratic states, pretty good proof this is a partisan scheme.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: May 10, 2008, 03:10:21 AM »

Hawaii has now passed the bill, for a total of 50 EV from four states, 200 EV left to go. 
The four states  that have passed the compact are solidly Democratic states, pretty good proof this is a partisan scheme.

"Scheme"? It seems that rejection of this is a "scheme" to preserve the unfair influence of small states.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: May 11, 2008, 11:31:19 PM »
« Edited: May 11, 2008, 11:33:44 PM by Verily »

It's passed both houses in Vermont as well, just waiting on the governor. I've no idea what Jim Douglas's stance is, but it passed with veto-proof majorities.

By the way, polls have generally indicated overwhelming support for abolishing the EC, around 60-70% in favor, so calling this a "partisan scheme," especially when it's clear that it wouldn't benefit any party, is remarkably moronic.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: May 12, 2008, 12:06:29 AM »

Oh, Verily, was that you who commented numerous times on the talk page of the Wikipedia article?
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: May 12, 2008, 03:57:38 AM »

Hawaii has now passed the bill, for a total of 50 EV from four states, 200 EV left to go. 
The four states  that have passed the compact are solidly Democratic states, pretty good proof this is a partisan scheme.

May I ask why the governor of Hawaii signed it (being Republican), if this were in some way a partisan scheme?
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: May 12, 2008, 11:04:40 AM »

Hawaii has now passed the bill, for a total of 50 EV from four states, 200 EV left to go. 
The four states  that have passed the compact are solidly Democratic states, pretty good proof this is a partisan scheme.

May I ask why the governor of Hawaii signed it (being Republican), if this were in some way a partisan scheme?

Actually, it was a veto override.
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,028
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: May 12, 2008, 11:28:42 AM »

Forgive me if I've missed this, but is there a time limit for this compact to take effect?
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: May 12, 2008, 11:37:02 AM »

Forgive me if I've missed this, but is there a time limit for this compact to take effect?

Not that I know of.
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: May 12, 2008, 12:16:56 PM »

Hawaii has now passed the bill, for a total of 50 EV from four states, 200 EV left to go. 
The four states  that have passed the compact are solidly Democratic states, pretty good proof this is a partisan scheme.

May I ask why the governor of Hawaii signed it (being Republican), if this were in some way a partisan scheme?

Actually, it was a veto override.

Ahh..sorry then.
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: May 12, 2008, 01:13:51 PM »

Hawaii has now passed the bill, for a total of 50 EV from four states, 200 EV left to go. 
The four states  that have passed the compact are solidly Democratic states, pretty good proof this is a partisan scheme.

May I ask why the governor of Hawaii signed it (being Republican), if this were in some way a partisan scheme?

Actually, it was a veto override.

Ahh..sorry then.

Cheesy

Her reason was the same stupid one Arnold gave, though.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,778


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: May 16, 2008, 10:37:28 PM »

Vermont's governor vetoed the NPV today. The legislature has adjourned so no override is possible.
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: May 20, 2008, 08:21:05 PM »

I wonder if that pocket veto (especially if he could have vetoed the bill when the Legislature was still in session to sustain or override it) could affect Douglas's reelection chances?
Logged
Хahar 🤔
Xahar
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 41,731
Bangladesh


Political Matrix
E: -6.77, S: 0.61

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: May 20, 2008, 10:33:04 PM »

I wonder if that pocket veto (especially if he could have vetoed the bill when the Legislature was still in session to sustain or override it) could affect Douglas's reelection chances?

Not likely. IMO, he's too popular in Vermot to let a little thing like this affect him.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,111
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: July 16, 2008, 04:21:46 PM »

It's passed both houses in Vermont as well, just waiting on the governor. I've no idea what Jim Douglas's stance is, but it passed with veto-proof majorities.

By the way, polls have generally indicated overwhelming support for abolishing the EC, around 60-70% in favor, so calling this a "partisan scheme," especially when it's clear that it wouldn't benefit any party, is remarkably moronic.

     It's a shame that 60-70% of the public opposes interesting Presidential elections. When this thing reaches 270 EVs, I'll consider moving to Canada, France, or the UK, whichever one has the most interesting elections. Wink
Logged
Countess Anya of the North Parish
cutie_15
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,561
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: July 24, 2008, 05:24:50 PM »

Why is it more interesting in Canada, France, or the UK? America is ineresting but a rip off.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,111
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: July 24, 2008, 07:18:11 PM »

Why is it more interesting in Canada, France, or the UK? America is ineresting but a rip off.

     I was joking. If you must know though, I named those three countries because I already can speak English & French, which would allow me to get around those places without too much trouble.
Logged
Countess Anya of the North Parish
cutie_15
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,561
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.39, S: -4.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: July 24, 2008, 08:19:21 PM »

My bad you might want to write lol at the end.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Atlas Politician
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 31,111
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: July 25, 2008, 07:37:41 AM »

     Except I wasn't laughing out loud. I did however use this: Wink. I use that when I'm joking, along with this one: Tongue.
Logged
bhouston79
Rookie
**
Posts: 206


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: January 30, 2009, 11:57:20 PM »

This is a ridiculous scheme.  We should stick with the current system.

And why would any state want to throw away its voting power by adopting a proposal like this?  It reall doesn't make any sense to effectively hand your voting power to other people.

So you really think that states have more "voting power" under our current scheme.  People in Utah, Vermont, Idaho, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Massachussets, California, ect. ect. really have a lot of say in our Presidential election these days.  They get a lot of attention from the candidates don't they?  How many times did Obama and McCain visit California, the most populous state in the union during the general election.  Probably a fraction of the number of times that they visited the Nevada, which is a state that is a fraction of the size of California in terms of population.  But I guess that that makes sense to you.  It's OK for all of our voting power in Presidential elections to be concentrated in the hands of only a handful of "swing states."  It's alright by you if the votes of the people of Utah or Massachussets are virtually meaningless while the votes of the people of the state of Florida or Ohio are each of crucial importance.  Why not have a system where every vote in every state counts equally, period.  Candidates couldn't simply focus all of their time on only a handful of swing states.  They would need to visit every state because even if they weren't competitive in a state, it would still be important for that candidate to cut down on the size of their defeat in that state.  Similarly, even if a candidate was sure to win a state, it would still be crucially important for that candidate to visit the state in order to maximize their margin of victory in the state. 
Logged
justfollowingtheelections
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,766


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: January 31, 2009, 12:31:08 AM »

Republicans who oppose this because "Democrats came up with the idea first, so it must be a partisan-scheme" are as ridiculous as those who deny the human factor's negative influence on the environment because Al Gore was the first to talk about it.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,568


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: January 31, 2009, 12:35:32 AM »

Republicans who oppose this because "Democrats came up with the idea first, so it must be a partisan-scheme" are as ridiculous as those who deny the human factor's negative influence on the environment because Al Gore was the first to talk about it.

That's funny becuase in the last 2 Presidential elections, the Democrat did better in the critical swing state than the nation-wide popular vote


2008: Obama wins nationwide by 7.25%, Iowa by 9.53%
2004: Kerry loses nationwide by 2.46%, Ohio by 2.10%.
Logged
dead0man
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 45,987
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: March 28, 2009, 06:04:21 AM »

This is a ridiculous scheme.  We should stick with the current system.

And why would any state want to throw away its voting power by adopting a proposal like this?  It reall doesn't make any sense to effectively hand your voting power to other people.

So you really think that states have more "voting power" under our current scheme.  People in Utah, Vermont, Idaho, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Massachussets, California, ect. ect. really have a lot of say in our Presidential election these days.  They get a lot of attention from the candidates don't they?  How many times did Obama and McCain visit California, the most populous state in the union during the general election.  Probably a fraction of the number of times that they visited the Nevada, which is a state that is a fraction of the size of California in terms of population.  But I guess that that makes sense to you.  It's OK for all of our voting power in Presidential elections to be concentrated in the hands of only a handful of "swing states."  It's alright by you if the votes of the people of Utah or Massachussets are virtually meaningless while the votes of the people of the state of Florida or Ohio are each of crucial importance.  Why not have a system where every vote in every state counts equally, period.  Candidates couldn't simply focus all of their time on only a handful of swing states.  They would need to visit every state because even if they weren't competitive in a state, it would still be important for that candidate to cut down on the size of their defeat in that state.  Similarly, even if a candidate was sure to win a state, it would still be crucially important for that candidate to visit the state in order to maximize their margin of victory in the state. 
And if we went to a popular vote system the candidates would never get away from the coasts at all.  How would that be better?
Logged
Franzl
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 22,254
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: March 28, 2009, 06:19:14 AM »

This is a ridiculous scheme.  We should stick with the current system.

And why would any state want to throw away its voting power by adopting a proposal like this?  It reall doesn't make any sense to effectively hand your voting power to other people.

So you really think that states have more "voting power" under our current scheme.  People in Utah, Vermont, Idaho, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Massachussets, California, ect. ect. really have a lot of say in our Presidential election these days.  They get a lot of attention from the candidates don't they?  How many times did Obama and McCain visit California, the most populous state in the union during the general election.  Probably a fraction of the number of times that they visited the Nevada, which is a state that is a fraction of the size of California in terms of population.  But I guess that that makes sense to you.  It's OK for all of our voting power in Presidential elections to be concentrated in the hands of only a handful of "swing states."  It's alright by you if the votes of the people of Utah or Massachussets are virtually meaningless while the votes of the people of the state of Florida or Ohio are each of crucial importance.  Why not have a system where every vote in every state counts equally, period.  Candidates couldn't simply focus all of their time on only a handful of swing states.  They would need to visit every state because even if they weren't competitive in a state, it would still be important for that candidate to cut down on the size of their defeat in that state.  Similarly, even if a candidate was sure to win a state, it would still be crucially important for that candidate to visit the state in order to maximize their margin of victory in the state. 
And if we went to a popular vote system the candidates would never get away from the coasts at all.  How would that be better?

The problem is....that isn't true. Votes could be gained everywhere in a popular vote system. How about visiting Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Chicago, Phoenix...and sure, the coasts would also be popular to visit (rightly so, as they have more residents)...but the point is that votes could be gained everywhere, and at places that are currently out of play to the Electoral College.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 16  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.046 seconds with 12 queries.