Home› A Moving Train

National Popular Vote

Johnny AbruzzoJohnny Abruzzo Philly Posts: 11,769
edited March 2012 in A Moving Train
Got an e-mail yesterday to sign a petition supporting the National Popular Vote initiative. The idea is that states pledge to award all their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote, once there are enough states and enough electoral votes (at least 270) to guarantee the popular vote winner will also win the electoral college. (does that make sense???) :lol: All of this is within the framework of the constitution, and does not require an amendment.

Just read about it here: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php

A few thoughts:

-As a Pennsylvanian, I am conflicted. Our state receives a lot of attention in presidential elections as a "swing state" and, if this were enacted, we would be just another state. On the other hand, it's hard to argue against it being the right thing to do. No I haven't signed the petition at this point. (like it would matter :roll: )

Looking at the states that have enacted NPV into law, they all seem to be blue states. Perhaps this is a reaction to Gore losing the electoral college in 2000 despite winning the popular vote. Of course, the red states are being shortsighted, since Kerry nearly won in 2004 despite losing the popular vote. Passing this should be a no brainer in, say, Texas or Utah.

Anyways, that was just a ramble. What does everyone think?
Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13;
Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24

Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    Johnny Abruzzo wrote:
    Got an e-mail yesterday to sign a petition supporting the National Popular Vote initiative. The idea is that states pledge to award all their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote, once there are enough states and enough electoral votes (at least 270) to guarantee the popular vote winner will also win the electoral college. (does that make sense???) :lol: All of this is within the framework of the constitution, and does not require an amendment.

    Just read about it here: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php

    A few thoughts:

    -As a Pennsylvanian, I am conflicted. Our state receives a lot of attention in presidential elections as a "swing state" and, if this were enacted, we would be just another state. On the other hand, it's hard to argue against it being the right thing to do. No I haven't signed the petition at this point. (like it would matter :roll: )

    Looking at the states that have enacted NPV into law, they all seem to be blue states. Perhaps this is a reaction to Gore losing the electoral college in 2000 despite winning the popular vote. Of course, the red states are being shortsighted, since Kerry nearly won in 2004 despite losing the popular vote. Passing this should be a no brainer in, say, Texas or Utah.

    Anyways, that was just a ramble. What does everyone think?


    it would just further the idea that states don't matter, and rural Americans wouldn't matter either. It would create a situation where we have a tyranny of the majority and it would be much easier to fix elections.

    Who would ever campaign in or care about rural America?

    The electoral college isn't perfect, but it rarely happens that a person loses the popular vote and wins the presidency...

    Flyover country would truly be just that...

    But I guess if a state wants to do it and it doesn't violate the constitution i guess it is up to them...

    if voter ID laws disenfranchise voters...wouldn't this as well?
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • polaris_xpolaris_x Posts: 13,559
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    Who would ever campaign in or care about rural America?

    who does now?
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    polaris_x wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    Who would ever campaign in or care about rural America?

    who does now?


    actually a lot of people do...there are farm subsidies given out, initiatives started to help rural america get on broadband, and many other programs geared toward rural areas.

    The politicians at the federal level seem to care a little bit, but I am talking about ever rural area in every state. Major metro areas would be the only people deciding the leaders for the entire country. They already have a large say in politics and national discussion, why give them the entire say?
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • Johnny AbruzzoJohnny Abruzzo Philly Posts: 11,769
    Nobody campaigns in rural areas in Alabama or Illinois now - just in Iowa and New Mexico.

    The metro areas are going to be more Democrat, rural more Republican. I don't know how much campaigning would change, just that candidates would have to pay attention to all states, not just a select dozen or so.
    Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13;
    Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
    Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24

    Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
  • StillHereStillHere Posts: 7,795
    Johnny Abruzzo wrote:
    Got an e-mail yesterday to sign a petition supporting the National Popular Vote initiative. The idea is that states pledge to award all their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote, once there are enough states and enough electoral votes (at least 270) to guarantee the popular vote winner will also win the electoral college. (does that make sense???) :lol: All of this is within the framework of the constitution, and does not require an amendment.

    Just read about it here: http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/index.php

    A few thoughts:

    -As a Pennsylvanian, I am conflicted. Our state receives a lot of attention in presidential elections as a "swing state" and, if this were enacted, we would be just another state. On the other hand, it's hard to argue against it being the right thing to do. No I haven't signed the petition at this point. (like it would matter :roll: )

    Looking at the states that have enacted NPV into law, they all seem to be blue states. Perhaps this is a reaction to Gore losing the electoral college in 2000 despite winning the popular vote. Of course, the red states are being shortsighted, since Kerry nearly won in 2004 despite losing the popular vote. Passing this should be a no brainer in, say, Texas or Utah.

    Anyways, that was just a ramble. What does everyone think?

    NO! Its already to the point where the Popular (personal) Vote doesn't really matter much at all.
    We surely don't need to take it any further than it already is.
    BAD IDEA in my opinion.
    peace,
    jo

    http://www.Etsy.com/Shop/SimpleEarthCreations
    "How I choose to feel is how I am." ~ EV/MMc
    "Some people hear their own inner voices with great clearness and they live by what they hear. Such people become crazy, or they become legends." ~ One Stab ~
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    Johnny Abruzzo wrote:
    Nobody campaigns in rural areas in Alabama or Illinois now - just in Iowa and New Mexico.

    The metro areas are going to be more Democrat, rural more Republican. I don't know how much campaigning would change, just that candidates would have to pay attention to all states, not just a select dozen or so.
    precisely why a balance like the electoral college is needed...

    Why would you have to pay attention to all the states when winning the major metro areas is all you would need to do. why waste time in the Dakotas when you can stick in the east coast and fly to California after that?
    New York City has a higher population than the bottom 2/3 of the states...it may not be much different, and like I said, if a state wants to do it I don't see what would stop them...maybe the DoJ if someone makes a complaint about the state election law change...I don't know...I don't like the idea that the national election trumps the state election...
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • Johnny AbruzzoJohnny Abruzzo Philly Posts: 11,769
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    Johnny Abruzzo wrote:
    Nobody campaigns in rural areas in Alabama or Illinois now - just in Iowa and New Mexico.

    The metro areas are going to be more Democrat, rural more Republican. I don't know how much campaigning would change, just that candidates would have to pay attention to all states, not just a select dozen or so.
    precisely why a balance like the electoral college is needed...

    Why would you have to pay attention to all the states when winning the major metro areas is all you would need to do. why waste time in the Dakotas when you can stick in the east coast and fly to California after that?
    New York City has a higher population than the bottom 2/3 of the states...it may not be much different, and like I said, if a state wants to do it I don't see what would stop them...maybe the DoJ if someone makes a complaint about the state election law change...I don't know...I don't like the idea that the national election trumps the state election...

    The states can allocate their electoral votes however they want, so yeah, if enough enact this law then the state-by-state elections will be meaningless.

    I think if I lived in California or Texas I would want this to pass - at this point everyone in those states has no say at all in presidential elections - big city or rural.
    Spectrum 10/27/09; New Orleans JazzFest 5/1/10; Made in America 9/2/12; Phila, PA 10/21/13; Phila, PA 10/22/13; Baltimore Arena 10/27/13;
    Phila, PA 4/28/16; Phila, PA 4/29/16; Fenway Park 8/7/16; Fenway Park 9/2/18; Asbury Park 9/18/21; Camden 9/14/22;
    Las Vegas 5/16/24; Las Vegas 5/18/24; Phila, PA 9/7/24; Phila, PA 9/9/24; Baltimore Arena 9/12/24

    Tres Mtns - TLA 3/23/11; EV - Tower Theatre 6/25/11; Temple of the Dog - Tower Theatre 11/5/16
  • mikepegg44mikepegg44 Posts: 3,353
    Johnny Abruzzo wrote:
    mikepegg44 wrote:
    Johnny Abruzzo wrote:
    Nobody campaigns in rural areas in Alabama or Illinois now - just in Iowa and New Mexico.

    The metro areas are going to be more Democrat, rural more Republican. I don't know how much campaigning would change, just that candidates would have to pay attention to all states, not just a select dozen or so.
    precisely why a balance like the electoral college is needed...

    Why would you have to pay attention to all the states when winning the major metro areas is all you would need to do. why waste time in the Dakotas when you can stick in the east coast and fly to California after that?
    New York City has a higher population than the bottom 2/3 of the states...it may not be much different, and like I said, if a state wants to do it I don't see what would stop them...maybe the DoJ if someone makes a complaint about the state election law change...I don't know...I don't like the idea that the national election trumps the state election...

    The states can allocate their electoral votes however they want, so yeah, if enough enact this law then the state-by-state elections will be meaningless.

    I think if I lived in California or Texas I would want this to pass - at this point everyone in those states has no say at all in presidential elections - big city or rural.

    I am not sure what you mean by no say? Maybe we should get on the same page with what we feel is or isn't disenfranchising about the electoral college

    the candidate who wins the popular vote but loses the electoral college is at fault more than the electoral college. (Unless of course an election is rigged, which would be much easier if we switched to a national election.)
    that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
    It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
    - Joe Rogan
  • brandon10brandon10 Posts: 1,114
    I think the popular vote should be most important. That way every vote counts. A vote in rural Kansas means the same as a vote in New York city. One vote is one vote.
Sign In or Register to comment.