Blatant effort to let the most populous states with the largest urban (code-word for Liberal) centers dictate the Presidential Election.





Hey dummies - ever notice that it's called the "President Of The United STATES", rather than the "President Of The United People".












We already HAVE a third of gov't directly elected by the people - It's called Congress.





The Founding Fathers knew that too much direct democracy was NOT a good thing.





It's bad enough that Senators aren't beholden to the States anymore... and it's no mere coincidence that the Fed Gov has virtually NO way for "States Rights" to be represented anymore either.
 

The road to hell is paved with good (and naive) intentions, or what-not....

Not a fan of the electoral college but that is just retarded

why would you want other states controlling your votes?

We were intentionally set up NOT to be a straight democracy for a reason...apparently it's too hard for these morons to understand.  They're angling for a straight democracy with this...which will lead us the way of the Romans...

The states have the right and authority to do this, that's fine with me.  It'll probably be repealed when it backfires on them, say in 2012.

Wouldn't be better to give those Electoral Votes to candidate for which the most people in that state voted, only fair

its the left, they dont care..



 

Full retard.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

Kind of the whole purpose of the electoral college....yeah....



 

Oh so the most populus states decide the president? Last time I checked the Electoral College was created to AVOID that exactly!

There is no good intentions, or naive ones on the parts of the people pushing for this.  They know what they are doing is bad and against the Constitution.  It is just that they decided to go this route rather than amend the constitution.  All they need is 11 states, or 16 without Texas.  Much better than three-forth of the states in ratification.

And of course, this is coming from the Democrats.  They have historically win in the urban centers and if they capture the urban vote of the most populous cities in the USA, they can ignore the rest of the country.

As another poster mentioned this could lead to a state's electorial votes going to someone who did not win the state. Talk about disenfranchising the voters in that state.... disingenuous.

Any member in ARFCOM that is still registered Democrat should be banned....  You cannot expect to stand behind the 2nd amendment if you are not willing to stand with the rest including the process of amending.


ETA: the CA state senate and assembly voted for it here, but the governor vetoed it.  They do not have enough votes to override.  However, if Jerry Brown wins, he will sign it.

What's funny is that if this system had been in place in 2004 all 12 Massachusetts electoral votes would have gone to...George W. Bush.  



What's even more funny is if Barry's current poll numbers hold true in 2012 then the Republican candidate –– whomever he or she is, polls show they are all ahead –– will win the presidency in an electoral landslide.  



I predict all these states will quickly change their laws in July, 2012, once it becomes obvious that Barry isn't going to get anywhere close to the popular support he got last time.

Simply retarded.  I expect Connecticut to stop bothering with elections and simply give the Democrats the few electoral votes we have.

Is this for real?

I know why they would do this, and they know why they would do this.

If this is for real then what they have found is a way to bypass the constitution, something all liberals hate to the core.

Actually electoral votes do not have to be given to the candidate winning the most votes in the state. The electoral college delegates are free to cast their vote however they wish.





 

I dont know why you guys are gnashing your teeth over this. This actually takes Massachussets, a state in which a Republican would have no chance of winning and makes the electoral votes actually available to said Republican. These idiots in Mass are just ensuring that there is a possibility that their votes could potentially go to a Republican candidate as opposed to how it currently is in that a Republican has no change of getting their electoral votes. In fact, i wish California and New york would do the same thing.

As retarded as doing it would be, I am pretty sure the constitution allows the states to set the rules on their elections and how their electorial votes are alocated.

I'll laugh my ass off when all of these blue states have to give their electoral votes to the Republican candidate in 2012, despite the fact that all the Dem carried the state.

Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake.  I hope more Blue states do this.  It means that Republicans can ignore these states and still win them by focusing their efforts on more productive areas.  

With the electorial votes of Ny and Ca, does it really matter any more?

A President elected by the people, that's just wrong..NOT.

When the electorial college was started it took days to travel between states. So they came up with a way to elect a president that didn't take months. It's no longer needed.

If your political ideas are popular, what do you have to fear?

If your political ideas are not popular, you lose. Sorry that's just how it works.

Correct...but it's also generally accepted they'll vote the state's wishes (which is basically what their job is...). there are also states that distribute theirs according to voting percentages in the state...which I'm fine with as well.



But putting them for the candidate based on national voting numbers? Brings us back to basic democracy...which we were founded against. For good reason...



 

The stupid here really does burn.

This isn't a red state blue state deal, it's a big state small state deal. People in California and Texas and Florida can't figure out why Iowa is so important

What I mean by bypassing the Constitution is that is moves us to a pure Democracy, which we all know is very evil.

Yeah...obviously we don't need the 12th Amendment...



 

they certainly tried to reverse the rule they innacted.

How would this scenario played out in 1984 and 1992?

Exactly. Because of the 2000 election suddenly GOP'ers get it into their heads that the electoral collage somehow helps them, IT DOESN'T.
It could just as easily swing the other way. Lets see how they feel when obama wins the college but loses the popular vote. It is also NOT bypassing the constitution. Nor is it any form of "direct Democracy", not when you are picking your REPRESENTATIVE. That's called a republic.
All its doing is a simple principle, 1 person = 1 vote. end of story.

Measures like this should be illegal. The Constitution clearly states that an electoral college votes on their own accord, not for someone that the state forces them to vote for.

Uh, no it doesn't, not on Arfcom anyway.
You know "certain people" should have 2/3rds a vote only.
You know who i'm talking about right?
This also has nothing to do with "small states", or else smaller states would be given MORE EC votes than their population. They weren't.
The problem arises in the fact that numbers have to basically be "rounded off" hence some votes are essentially discarded which is bullshit.
Normally in an election this rounding off is not a problem as the winner usually wins by 5-10% vote so it matches up but in a REALLY close election the rounding off DOES matter and it screws up the system. It has nothing to do with small states or Rural vs. Urban or anything like that.

It probably is unconstitutional, along with the various faithless elector laws that exist in some of the other states.

Full retard.  They done went it.

Yeah. That isn't going to work out nearly as well as they think.

Genius. How about every state does that? wait a second.....

fucking idiots

Having lost teddys seat to Brown has got them skeered.

They changed the rules so they could keep a D in the senate seat that was vacated... and then when Ted Kennedy passed, a Republican would have been seated, but they wanted to change the rule back so they could get a democrat in.

They change the rules of the game so they can win, and will change them back if they start to lose.  To them, the end justifies the means.

We are gnashing our teeth because we still believe in the rule of law, we still believe in the Constitution.  We believe that those words still mean today what they meant when they were written.  

Amnesty will make this a winning strategy for the next 20 years.

If that's the case, then these states could have it both ways, then, right?

If their guy comes out ahead in the ballots, then praise be to their new law.

If the R wins, then their electoral college votes for the D anyway because no law should compel them to vote a certain way.

These laws will be repealed within a year of the next Republican taking a majority of the popular vote.

Have either of you ever heard the term "Tyranny of the majority"?, the Electoral College was created to make sure that the more heavily populated states couldn't dictate terms to the less popular ones, with a direct democracy (No Electoral College) the only states that matter are the ones with the most population, basically the coasts, and the concerns of the lighter population states would just be ignored, basically they would have NO representation at the executive level.  What it amounts to is only people who live in cities would really get a vote, the rest of the country would vote to of course, but since there outnumbered by the cities it doesn't make a difference.  It is no coincidence that the highest population states are democrat controlled, and the only reason for that is that most of there votes come from there cities, which are overwhelmingly liberal.  Do you really want the Presidential election decided by New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Seattle, Boston, Detroit, Austin, San Diago, and San Fransisco? because that's exactly what will happen, since most of the population lives in cities, there the only places that would really matter, there the only places where politicians would campaign, the rest of the country would be ignored.  It's no coincidence that the only candidates that can win the cities are hard left, and the highest population states always go democrat, and that under a direct democracy the rest of the country that lives outside the cities who happen to be mostly on the political right, and generally vote Republican wouldn't count.  All the electoral college does is ensure that anyone elected President would have to win broad support, not just the most populated areas.  Or to put it in an analogy, a direct Democracy is like 2 Wolves, and a Sheep voting on what to have for dinner, mob rule.  The Electoral College gives the 2 wolves only 1 vote between them, so if they want to eat they will have to compromise with the sheep.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2004/images/counties-2000.gif
Should we only count the blue ones, and ignore all the red?  If we used direct democracy (No Electoral College), that's exactly what we would do.  (that's the 2000 county by county electoral map, without the Electoral College we would have been stuck with gore, and THAT'S the whole reason the left first started with this nonsense of wanting a direct democracy.)

Bingo.

Then doesn't that negate the votes of their own people in Massachusetts?

Was wondering the same thing.

It could.  If it required that the Electoral College votes went to the winner of the election based purely on NATIONAL level popular voting, then yes.  Say a strong Republican candidate runs and gets the majority vote on a national level, but the vote on the state level in Mass went to the Democrat, the Electoral College votes would go to the Republican candidate.  

And you know they'd bitch and moan about it to no end.

If it started to go that way, MA would probably convene a special legislative session on election day, vote to change it back to how it is now, and have the governor sign it into law immediately.  Kind of like what they did to keep Romney from being able to name Kerry's replacement.

The Connecticut Compromise

Could actually be a good move, come 2012 when you KNOW the Dems wont be winning...

So will they still play by the rules if the Republican candidate wins the popular vote? Or will they change their mind and still vote for the democrat that carries their state?



George W Bush beat John Kerry by 3 million popular votes. Something tells me those blue state dipshits would not have tossed their electoral votes to W, regardless of whatever scheme they've enrolled themselves into.