General Discussion

joeglow3

(6,228 posts)

10. Neither party will allow it to happen

Wed Feb 1, 2012, 02:43 PM

Feb 2012

I live in Nebraska and we split out votes. Republicans are fighting like crazy to get rid of it (especially after Obama got 1 vote in 2008) and Democrats are calling Republicans corrupt who want to take a voice from the people.

Separately, Republicans are calling Democrats corrupt for not allowing the people of California more say by splitting their electoral votes and Democrats are fighting like crazy to keep it.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

40 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

End the electoral college [View all] wilt the stilt Jan 2012 OP

Agreed. Here's a good mathematical case for why... Scuba Jan 2012 #1

The National Popular Vote Bill mvymvy Jan 2012 #2

It's completely unenforceable. Angleae Jan 2012 #3

Realities mvymvy Jan 2012 #5

The whole thing boils down to one question. Angleae Feb 2012 #6

Neither party will allow it to happen joeglow3 Feb 2012 #10

There are all kinds of constitutional problems with National Popular Vote. Nye Bevan Feb 2012 #14

Each state has a number of electors equal to its total Congressional representation Zebedeo Jan 2012 #4

Why must this compromise extend to the Presidential election? 2ndAmForComputers Feb 2012 #19

Sounds great, but not likely to ever happen Major Nikon Feb 2012 #7

National Popular Vote is not a constitutional amendment mvymvy Feb 2012 #9

That doesn't end the electorial college as the OP suggested Major Nikon Feb 2012 #12

National Popular Vote does not end the EC, but it does make every vote equal mvymvy Feb 2012 #15

And it's probably unconstitutional. Nye Bevan Feb 2012 #18

Would be great -IF... upi402 Feb 2012 #8

As long as you like having the interior states unpaved. nt Snake Alchemist Feb 2012 #11

No, we can't Motown_Johnny Feb 2012 #13

NPV does NOT require a constitutional amendment. It is 49% of the way to going into effect mvymvy Feb 2012 #16

What stops a state from just not doing this, or Motown_Johnny Feb 2012 #17

or if (say) Texas chooses to not participate, and declines to provide a popular vote count? Nye Bevan Feb 2012 #20

Title 3, Chapter 1, Section 6 of the United States Code Requires States to Report Totals mvymvy Feb 2012 #22

And what if Texas refuses? What's the remedy? Nye Bevan Feb 2012 #23

49% of the way to going into effect - Enacted by 3 jurisdictions among the 13 smallest states mvymvy Feb 2012 #21

I'm still not buying it Motown_Johnny Feb 2012 #24

It would be a constitutional and administrative nightmare. Nye Bevan Feb 2012 #25

NPV achieves the goal of guaranteeing the Presidency to Candidate with most national popular votes mvymvy Feb 2012 #26

But it would be the popular vote of only the states in that 270 block Motown_Johnny Feb 2012 #29

Winner of Popular Vote in ALL 50 States and DC gets NPV's enacting states' electoral votes - 270+ mvymvy Feb 2012 #31

I'm still not buying it.. again Motown_Johnny Feb 2012 #34

see my post #13 of why this can't be done Motown_Johnny Feb 2012 #28

See Post #16 mvymvy Feb 2012 #32

Why? Don't you like a select group picking our leader for us? Rex Feb 2012 #27

It won't change much zipplewrath Feb 2012 #30

Any state that enacts the proportional approach on its own would reduce its own influence mvymvy Feb 2012 #33

About 76% of Americans and States are Ignored Under the Current System mvymvy Feb 2012 #35

When a presidential candidate spends more time in Iowa than California taught_me_patience Feb 2012 #36

That's a totally separate issue. The primary system is decided by the parties Nye Bevan Feb 2012 #37

Iowa was a swing state in 2008 taught_me_patience Feb 2012 #38

Sorry, thought you were talking about the caucuses (nt) Nye Bevan Feb 2012 #39

To answer your Q directly: "No, we cannot end it." Bruce Wayne Feb 2012 #40