Show of HandsShow of Hands

VirtualCongress December 16th, 2016 10:14pm

Secretary of Health and Human Services BobbyMulkernIII proposes Popular Vote Act

0 Liked

Comments: Add Comment

TJMacks3 Evolutionary Socialist
12/18/16 11:20 pm

Sorry if I'm a bit salty, but how is getting more support than my reform bill!?

vccghdbf MrAmerica 2017
12/16/16 7:30 pm

This user is currently being ignored

NDAmerican WV Escapee
12/16/16 7:08 pm

The VC already uses the popular vote, otherwuse this would take a constitutional amendment.

Reply
JennaB Mother
12/16/16 5:11 pm

Nay. We need a constitutional ammendment to do that.

Reply
Liberty Lets Use Logic
12/16/16 3:36 pm

Nay. This is well outside of the federal government's given authority and a huge conflict of interest.
Not to mention that it would have to be a constitutional amendment anyway rather than a bill.

Reply
TomLaney1 Jesus is Lord
12/16/16 3:42 pm

Agreed. HUGE Nay!

geoag02 Dallas, TX
12/16/16 3:54 pm

You mean we can't repeal half of article 2 with a normal bill?!?

TomLaney1 Jesus is Lord
12/16/16 4:08 pm

No, we can't, not that most of us would want to anyway. It would take a Constitutional amendment to repeal the Second, and that just ain't going to happen.

GeneralDevin MN
12/16/16 3:24 pm

Terrible idea. We need the electoral college in order to have good representation for all the states. With the popular vote only the populous states will decide the election.

Reply
vccghdbf MrAmerica 2017
12/16/16 3:24 pm

This user is currently being ignored

Reply
JennaB Mother
12/16/16 5:11 pm

If every vote counts they absolutely will! A close election like Bush V. Gore is a perfect example of how every single vote counts.

vccghdbf MrAmerica 2017
12/16/16 5:28 pm

This user is currently being ignored

JennaB Mother
12/16/16 5:31 pm

What does that have to do with anything?

JennaB Mother
12/16/16 5:48 pm

Why should Wisconsin be able to override the majority of Americans vote?

vccghdbf MrAmerica 2017
12/16/16 7:15 pm

This user is currently being ignored

JennaB Mother
12/16/16 7:45 pm

Unless we went to a majority rule were SHE won the majority by a landslide. Majority rule wins in a democratic vote. In a close election every vote counts more with a pure popular vote. With Electoral college NY, CA, TX, FL, PA, VA, OH and a few other small states you can win with 25% of popular vote. Electoral College creates the problem you think popular vote would cause. Popular vote gives not only every state but every citizen importance.

Sentinel Ya ie wa noh
12/16/16 9:16 pm

Not if it is being mirrored off of a republic such as ours, with a Constitution and Sovereign States.....

JennaB Mother
12/16/16 9:39 pm

Sovereign states do not exist anymore. The original concept of states died almost 125 years ago. We are one country, not a union of sovereign regions. That is the EU, the US is one country and we should accept that. Because we accept it let's do away with this rediculous Electoral College and become a true Republic

Sentinel Ya ie wa noh
12/16/16 9:45 pm

The Electral College does more than you could ever fathom to assure equal representation, equal recognition and equal standing when choosing and electing presidents.......

sd123 San Diego
12/16/16 10:09 pm

Sentinel, who are you kidding? All it does is unbalance things. How can you argue that anything is more balanced than every citizen having one vote?

Sentinel Ya ie wa noh
12/16/16 10:21 pm

So, you and LFJ, are that much more above, insighted and foresighted than our collective Forefathers, who by the way put an actual working model in operation, the one you thumb your nose at and take for granted daily, the very one that gives you your liberties to thump your nose and take advantage of......is that in fact the case....?.....

sd123 San Diego
12/16/16 10:23 pm

Yes it is in fact the case that the electoral college is outdated, that's why they gave us the ability to make amendments.

Sentinel Ya ie wa noh
12/16/16 10:24 pm

by William C. Kimberling, Deputy Director FEC National Clearinghouse on Election Administration

In order to appreciate the reasons for the Electoral College, it is essential to understand its historical context and the problem that the Founding Fathers were trying to solve. They faced the difficult question of how to elect a president in a nation that:
was composed of thirteen large and small States jealous of their own rights and powers and suspicious of any central national government
contained only 4,000,000 people spread up and down a thousand miles of Atlantic seaboard barely connected by transportation or communication (so that national campaigns were impractical even if they had been thought desirable)
believed, under the influence of such British political thinkers as Henry St. John Bolingbroke, that political parties were mischievous if not downright evil, and
felt that gentlemen should not campaign for public office (The saying was, (Cont).....

sd123 San Diego
12/16/16 10:30 pm

California has 55 electors for roughly 39 million people and Iowa has 6 electors for roughly 3 million people. Meaning CA's electors each represent 709k people and IA's electors represent 500k people. Why should the state of Iowa, who contributes less GDP per capita to the union compared to CA, have more influence in the election? Guess what, I don't care if your little state is suspicious of the federal government, if you want to be part of the union you can get with the program because that's not a very convincing reason to make my vote worth less than yours.

Sentinel Ya ie wa noh
12/16/16 10:37 pm

"The Office should seek the man, the man should not seek the office"). How, then, to choose a president without political parties, without national campaigns, and without upsetting the carefully designed balance between the presidency and the congress on one hand and between the States and the federal government on the other?...... (Cont.)

Sentinel Ya ie wa noh
12/16/16 10:39 pm

Origins of the Electoral College

The Constitutional Convention considered several possible methods of selecting a president.

One idea was to have the Congress choose the president. This idea was rejected, however, because some felt that making such a choice would be too divisive an issue and leave too many hard feelings in the Congress. Others felt that such a procedure would invite unseemly political bargaining, corruption, and perhaps even interference from foreign powers. Still others felt that such an arrangement would upset the balance of power between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

A second idea was to have the State legislatures select the president. This idea, too, was rejected out of fears that a president so beholden to the State legislatures might permit them to erode federal authority and thus undermine the whole idea of a federation.......(cont.)......

JennaB Mother
12/16/16 10:44 pm

Giving the origin of the shitty system changes nothing and is a waste of your time.

Sentinel Ya ie wa noh
12/16/16 10:53 pm

A third idea was to have the President elected by a direct popular vote. Direct election was rejected not because the Framers of the Constitution doubted public intelligence but rather because they feared that without sufficient information about candidates from outside their State, people would naturally vote for a "favorite son" from their own State or region. At worst, no president would emerge with a popular majority sufficient to govern the whole country. At best, the choice of president would always be decided by the largest, most populous States with little regard for the smaller ones..... (Cont.)......

Sentinel Ya ie wa noh
12/16/16 10:55 pm

Finally, a so-called "Committee of Eleven" in the Constitutional Convention proposed an indirect election of the president through a College of Electors.

The function of the College of Electors in choosing the president can be likened to that in the Roman Catholic Church of the College of Cardinals selecting the Pope. The original idea was for the most knowledgeable and informed individuals from each State to select the president based solely on merit and without regard to State of origin or political party.

The structure of the Electoral College can be traced to the Centurial Assembly system of the Roman Republic. Under that system, the adult male citizens of Rome were divided, according to their wealth, into groups of 100 (called Centuries). Each group of 100 was entitled to cast only one vote either in favor or against proposals submitted to them by the Roman Senate. In the Electoral College system, the States serve as the Centurial groups..... (Cont.).....

JennaB Mother
12/16/16 10:57 pm

Holy shit.........

sd123 San Diego
12/16/16 11:01 pm

The founders' concern about a "favorite son" wouldn't be much of an issue today- America's culture in 2016 is pretty homogeneous for the most part and everyone has access to mass media.

Sentinel Ya ie wa noh
12/16/16 11:05 pm

(thought they are not, of course based on wealth), and the number of votes per State is determined by the size of each State's Congressional delegation. Still, the two systems are similar in design and share many of the same advantages and disadvantages.

The similarities between the Electoral College and classical institutions are not accidental, Many of the Founding Fathers were well schooled in ancient history and its lessons...... (Cont.)....

Sentinel Ya ie wa noh
12/16/16 11:08 pm

The First Design

In the first design of the Electoral College (described in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution):
Each State was allocated a number of Electors equal to the number of its U.S. Senators (always 2) plus the number of its U.S. Representative (which may change each decade according to the size of each State's population as determined in the decennial census). This arrangement built upon an earlier compromise in the design of the Congress itself and thus satisfied both large and small States.
The manner of choosing the Electors was left to the individual State legislatures, thereby pacifying States suspicious of a central national government.
Members of Congress and employees of the federal government were specifically prohibited from serving as an Elector in order to maintain the balance between the legislative and executive branches of the federal government........ (Cont.)

Sentinel Ya ie wa noh
12/16/16 11:22 pm

Each State's Electors were required to meet in their respective States rather than all together in one great meeting. This arrangement, it was thought,would prevent bribery, corruption, secret dealings, and foreign influence. In order to prevent Electors from voting only for a "favorite son" of their own State, each Elector was required to cast two votes for president, at least one of which had to be for someone outside their home State. The idea, presumably, was that the winner would likely be everyone's, second favorite choice.... (Cont.)......

Sentinel Ya ie wa noh
12/16/16 11:26 pm

The electoral votes were to be sealed and transmitted from each of the States to the President of the Senate who would then open them before both houses of the Congress and read the results.
The person with the most electoral votes, provided that it was an absolute majority (at least one over half of the total), became president. Whoever obtained the next greatest number of electoral votes became vice president - an office which they seem to have invented for the occasion since it had not been mentioned previously in the Constitutional Convention.
In the event that no one obtained an absolute majority in the Electoral College or in the event of a tie vote, the U.S. House of Representatives, as the chamber closest to the people, would choose the president from among the top five contenders. They would do this (as a further concession to the small States) by allowing each State to cast only one vote with an absolute majority of the States being required to elect a president...(cont.)....

Sentinel Ya ie wa noh
12/16/16 11:51 pm

The Vice Presidency would go to whatever remaining contender had the greatest number of Electoral votes, if that, too, was tied, the U.S Senate would break the tie deciding between the two.
In all, this was quite an elaborate design, But it was also a very clever one when you consider that the whole operation was supposed to be without political parties and without national campaigns..... (Cont.)......

Sentinel Ya ie wa noh
12/16/16 11:53 pm

while maintaining the balances and satisfying the fears in play at the time. Indeed, it is probably because the Electoral College was originally designed to operate in an environment so totally different from our own that many people think it is anachronistic and fail to appreciate the new purposes it now serves. But of that, more later.

The Second Design

The first design of the Electoral College lasted through only four presidential elections. For in the meantime, political parties had emerged in the United States. The very people who had been condemning parties publicly had nevertheless been building them privately. And too, the idea of political parties had gained respectability through the persuasive writings of such political philosophers as Edmund Burke and James Madison.

One of the accidental results of the development of political parties was that in the presidential election of 1800, the Electors of the Democratic- (Cont.).....

Sentinel Ya ie wa noh
12/17/16 12:02 am

Republican Party gave Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr (both of that party) an equal number of Electoral votes. The tie was resolved by the House of Representatives in Jefferson's favor- but only after 36 tries and some serious political dealings which were considered unseemly at the time, Since this sort of bargaining over the presidency was the very thing the Electoral College was supposed to prevent, the Congress and the States hastily adopted the Twelfth Amendment to the Constitution by September of 1804......(cont.).....

Sentinel Ya ie wa noh
12/17/16 12:04 am

To prevent tie votes in the Electoral College which were made probable, if not inevitable, by the rise of political parties (and no doubt to facilitate the election of a president and vice president of the same party), the 12th Amendment requires that each Elector cast one vote for president and a separate vote for vice president rather than casting two votes for president with the runner-up being made vice president. The Amendment also stipulates that if no one receives an absolute majority of electoral votes for president, then the U.S. House of Representatives will select the president from among the top three contenders with each State casting only one vote and an absolute majority being required to elect. By the same token, if no one receives an absolute majority for vice president, then the U.S. Senate will select the vice president from among the top two contenders for that office........(cont.)

Sentinel Ya ie wa noh
12/17/16 12:12 am

All other features of the Electoral College remained the same including the requirements that, in order to prevent Electors from voting only for a "favorite son", either the presidential or vice presidential candidate has to be from a State other than the Electors..... (Cont.)......

Sentinel Ya ie wa noh
12/17/16 12:14 am

In short, political party loyalties had, by 1800, begun to cut across State loyalties thereby creating new and different problems in the selection of a president. By making seemingly slight changes, the 12th Amendment fundamentally altered the design of the Electoral College and, in one stroke, accommodated political parties as a fact of life in American presidential elections.

It is noteworthy in passing that the idea of electing the president by direct popular vote was not widely promoted as an alternative to redesigning the Electoral College. This may be because the physical and demographic circumstances of the country had not changed that much in a dozen or so years. Or it may be because the excesses of the recent French revolution (and its fairly rapid degeneration into dictatorship) had given the populists some pause to reflect on the wisdom of too direct a democracy.

The Evolution of the Electoral College

Since the 12th Amendment..... (Cont.).....

Sentinel Ya ie wa noh
12/17/16 12:34 am

there have been several federal and State statutory changes which have affected both the time and manner of choosing presidential Electors, but which have not further altered the fundamental working of the Electoral College. There has also been a few curious incidents which its "critics cite as problems but which proponents of the Electoral College view as merely its natural and intended operation."

Now children, tell me.....us, why you two geniuses believe you are just that much more intelligent than the very designers of the the system you experience and enjoy everyday since birth, you two honestly believe you are just that much greater that the Founding Collective?!......

sd123 San Diego
12/16/16 3:15 pm

I'd love to hear a good argument against this.

bnasty07
12/16/16 5:10 pm

There are several above

JennaB Mother
12/16/16 9:39 pm

They're not good arguments at all

bnasty07
12/17/16 7:41 am

The fact that you need a constitutional amendment to overturn the electoral college is a very good argument.

sd123 San Diego
12/17/16 9:13 am

The fact that you need an amendment isn't an argument at all.

bnasty07
12/17/16 9:17 am

Against this bill? Yes, it is.

sd123 San Diego
12/17/16 12:58 pm

Well yeah you are right, a bill isn't enough.

VirtualCongress Speaker NDAmerican
12/16/16 3:14 pm

1. Beginning with the 2020 presidential election all presidential elections will be decided by the popular vote instead of the Electoral College. The candidate who receives the most votes wins the election.