It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Iowa Looking to Break From Electoral College

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Iowa Looking to Break From Electoral College


www.kcrg.com

The proposal is moving through the state Senate and so far has generated little opposition.

It calls for Iowa to join with other states and pledge its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote, no matter who wins in Iowa.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:05 PM
link   
I would love to see this resolution passed not only in Iowa but throughout the US.

We no longer need to elect people to go to Washington and then have them choose the president. That is a relic from the past when a journey to Washington could take weeks by horseback and there was little communication. Then, you had to choose people to represent your interests and then represent you.

Now, you see the results come in real time.

Let's do away with the horse and buggy artifact... The Electoral College.



www.kcrg.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:43 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


Let's hope this movement finds some support among the ration American population.

Others will listen to MSM and believe whatever they are told.



posted on Feb, 12 2009 @ 03:50 PM
link   
This has been a pet peeve of mine for years.

Why do we have this throwback still in existence?


It serves no purpose and we can actually have a situation where the popular vote does not determine the outcome of the election.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 01:18 PM
link   
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 would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.

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 Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.

The bill is currently endorsed by 1,246 state legislators — 460 sponsors (in 48 states) and an additional 786 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.

The National Popular Vote bill has been endorsed by the New York Times, Chicago Sun-Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Los Angeles Times, Boston Globe, Hartford Courant, Miami Herald, Sarasota Herald Tribune, Sacramento Bee, The Tennessean, Fayetteville Observer, Anderson Herald Bulletin, Wichita Falls Times, The Columbian, and other newspapers. The bill has been endorsed by Common Cause, Fair Vote, and numerous other organizations.

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. This national result is similar to recent polls in Arkansas (80%), California (70%), Colorado (68%), Connecticut (73%), Delaware (75%), Kentucky (80%), Maine (71%), Massachusetts (73%), Michigan (73%), Mississippi (77%), Missouri (70%), New Hampshire (69%), Nebraska (74%), Nevada (72%), New Mexico (76%), New York (79%), North Carolina (74%), Ohio (70%), Pennsylvania (78%), Rhode Island (74%), Vermont (75%), Virginia (74%), Washington (77%), and Wisconsin (71%).

The National Popular Vote bill has passed 22 state legislative chambers, including one house in Arkansas, Colorado, Maine, Michigan, North Carolina, and Washington, and both houses in California, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These four states possess 50 electoral votes — 19% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.

See www.NationalPopularVote.com...



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


A move in the right direction. The Electoral College is a joke. Delegate, Super Delegate, Ultra-Hella Delegate.

American Politics is a joke. A stupid #ing joke.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 01:34 PM
link   
The reason the electoral college exists in the first place is to protect the rights of states with lower populations.

Places like Wyoming and Alaska would have their power in electing members of the federal government basically stripped if we went to a popular vote, since their populations are so low. This would allow elected officials to effectively ignore those states and treat them as second-class states.

Still, I don't like the idea that just because you live in Wyoming, your vote is worth more than mine.

Here is an interesting link regarding how much a persons vote is worth.
www.fairvote.org...



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 01:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aquin
The reason the electoral college exists in the first place is to protect the rights of states with lower populations.

I understand that. However, now the big three - California, New York, Illinois - are holding the country hostage as far as the presidential elections go.

Get rid of the electoral college. One vote = one vote. Period.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I see this as a state's rights/sovreignity issue and I'm really surprised to see how many people here support the idea. By eliminating the electorial college, you effectively place 70% of the states into the hands of the remaining 30% as far as the direction this country takes is concerned.

I think a far better idea would be, if we eliminate the electorial college, removing some powers from the office of president and instituting a national level vote on matters of supreme importance. For instance, this 'stimulus' bill should be voted on by those who will ultimately pay for it, that being all of us. The other issue I see here is that, if they eliminate the electorial college and go to a national popular vote, then it has to be completely controlled and normalized at the federal level. Again, bye-bye state's rights.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 02:28 PM
link   
Disbanding the electoral college won't change the fact that electronic voting machines source code are not open to independent review. Nor will it change the facts that thousands of dead people are allowed to vote, along with illegals, unregistered citizens, Mickey Mouse and Superman.

Voters do not decide elections, the people who count the votes do.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 02:58 PM
link   
Doing this is the only way to give the voter a real voice. As it stands your voice is only as strong as the people in your state. Your voice will now be on a national level. I use California for example. I know people who vote conservative but obviously their vote might as well not count because of the huge liberal population in California. If this is done by popular vote his voice will be heard and Im sure many more people would actually come out to vote.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 03:23 PM
link   
I completely agree - one vote = one vote no electoral college.

BUT with one designation: you must show ID to vote! I don't care what ID any ID the govt can make it accessible to elderly/handicapped I don't care but seriously it's harder to rent a blockbuster movie than to vote.



posted on Feb, 13 2009 @ 04:41 PM
link   
We live in a time where communication in this country is in real time.

Let's get rid of this dead horse and run our elections like they should be run.

One person, one vote.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 05:47 PM
link   
HaHA! I just was assigned a project last week in History, and my friends and I decided to abolish the Electoral College. Here is what we have:

Amending the Constitution
Group Members: Me, her, and her

Topic: Abolishing the Electoral College

Amendment Language:
The popular vote shall be the only deciding factor in the election of the president and vice president.

Section I
The Electoral College shall be eliminated due to its interference with the accurate representation of the individual votes cast by the citizens of the United States of America.

Section II
The United States shall utilize a direct election in which each vote cast is tallied and evaluated as a percentage of the nation-wide total of votes cast.

Section III
The presidential candidate receiving the greatest number of votes will become the president, and the vice presidential candidate running on the same ticket shall become the vice president.

Section IV
In the event that two or more candidates tie within a margin of .25% of the total number of votes cast, the House of Representatives shall vote, as described under the twelfth amendment.

Support:
Direct correlation between people’s votes and the outcome of the election- “Does my vote count?” question disappears
- Direct voting is more in line with the democratic principles.
- Direct voting would encourage candidates to campaign all over the country, rather than focusing on key “battleground states”
Bush vs. Gore, repeat of this situation would be impossible
- When the President is elected because of the Electoral College and not the Popular Vote, the President may face questions about his authenticity
Disproportionate representation- electoral votes are based on the population who can vote, but if not everyone votes, the state has more electoral college votes than it should
- The Electoral College gives disproportionate representation to the votes of small states. A single electoral vote in a state with fewer electors, like Wyoming, counts more than the vote of a single elector in a more populated state like California.
Break tradition of “red/blue state,” less bias
Not all states require their electors to vote for who they pledge during their own election, so Americans may vote for an elector who they believe will vote the way that they prefer, but the electors may end up voting differently
- “There is no Constitutional provision or Federal Law that requires electors to vote according to the results of the popular vote in their States.” – US Electoral College webpage
System that is not ambiguous is preferred, elector voting is not regulated the same way in different states

Defense:
What about the “uneducated masses?”
- There are still uneducated people, but with the accessibility of education and laws that require children to stay in school until age 16, as well as the accessibility of information in modern times, it’s not appropriate to assume that the majority of American voters are uneducated.
The amendment would be a big change, it would change the way that America votes for it’s leaders
- It would not be a big change. We’re keeping the same system, but eliminating the intermediate step between popular vote and outcome when a candidate wins a majority of America’s votes.
Direct election from the popular vote would make voting categorized by states unnecessary: why would we need to organize the votes into different states if everyone’s vote is counted equally?
- States would still control the voting techniques implemented in each state, such as paper versus electronic voting. And counting the votes by state would be critical for the purpose of statistics, and also due to the fact that different states have different polling times, and it would continue to make the predictions and releases of the results of each state more organized on election night.

To be completed by TEACHER
Percentage: 3/4th = ______/_______
Vote: _____ /_____
Outcome: Ratified/ Not Ratified



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 05:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aquin
The reason the electoral college exists in the first place is to protect the rights of states with lower populations.

Places like Wyoming and Alaska would have their power in electing members of the federal government basically stripped if we went to a popular vote, since their populations are so low. This would allow elected officials to effectively ignore those states and treat them as second-class states.

Still, I don't like the idea that just because you live in Wyoming, your vote is worth more than mine.

Here is an interesting link regarding how much a persons vote is worth.
www.fairvote.org...


If you believe in the Republic, and states rights^^ this makes perfect since. If you want direct democracy, move somewhere else.



posted on Feb, 21 2009 @ 06:20 PM
link   
I don't see how this is going to fix anything, unless you really do want a Socialist United States forever. With the Obama White House's plan under the rule of Generalissimo Emmanuel to "cook" the upcoming census numbers to count, aka legalize, non-American, aka illegal aliens, in America; the USA is going to turn into the next Banana Republic dictatorship, the same path Venezuela's going down right now.



posted on Feb, 24 2009 @ 12:56 PM
link   
75% OF IOWA VOTERS FAVOR A NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE FOR PRESIDENT

A survey of 800 Iowa voters showed 75% overall support for a national popular vote for President. The question was "How do you think we should elect the President when we vote in the November general election: should it be the candidate who gets the most votes in all 50 states, or the current electoral college system?

By political affiliation, support for a national popular vote for President was 82% among Democrats, 63% among Republicans, and 77% among others.

By age, support was 76% among 18-29 year olds, 65% among 30-45 year olds, 76% among 46-65 year olds, and 80% for those older than 65.

By gender, support was 82% among women and 67% among men.

By race, support was 75% among whites (representing 93% of respondents), 65% among African Americans (representing 2% of respondents), 86% among Hispanics (representing 1% of respondents), and 58% among others (representing 4% of respondents).

The survey was conducted on February 17-18, 2009, by Public Policy Polling.

see www.NationalPopularVote.com



posted on Aug, 2 2010 @ 01:56 PM
link   
You see my problem is that once people start changing the constitution it won't stop. One thing leads to another and before you know it we will have a President sitting in office for 4 terms instead of 2. People don't know when to quit and this is not a good thing to start.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join