Pennsylvania Ponders Bold Democrat-Screwing Electoral Plan

[Zoupa]

It's not a democracy, it's a republic.

If you want more democracy, campaign for your state to join the National Popular Vote bandwagon.
It's up to 132 votes, 49% of the way there.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

I always found retarded that you guys didn't already have that.

I was going to give you the entire song and dance about how the electoral system is important because it means that candidates cannot ignore smaller states in favor of just going where the population is at, but then I got thinking...so what?

These are national elections we are talking about, and the debate and campaign is national in scope.

Exactly. Especially when you have a Congress that actually wields power. The Presidency shouldn't have to rely on anything but total number of votes.

[Razgovory]

I was going to give you the entire song and dance about how the electoral system is important because it means that candidates cannot ignore smaller states in favor of just going where the population is at, but then I got thinking...so what?

These are national elections we are talking about, and the debate and campaign is national in scope. What difference does it make if Presidential candidates actually visit Wyoming or not? It's not like if they don't people in Wyoming won't know who is running, or what they stand for, right?

Hell, the entire travelling around and visiting places as part of the effort to garner votes is pretty silly anyway. Our entire process is strucutured around an eleectoral system that is not founded on anything that has current relevancy, really. Iowa is stupidly important, along with Massachusetts. Why? Because they have early primaries.

I think Zoupa is right. The electoral system is retarded in general.

I am beginning to think you are right.  I was against the idea during the Bush administration because I felt it would look like sour grapes.  Still, the 2000 election where the guy who gets less votes then the other loses is not ideal.

[jimmy olsen]

I was going to give you the entire song and dance about how the electoral system is important because it means that candidates cannot ignore smaller states in favor of just going where the population is at, but then I got thinking...so what?

These are national elections we are talking about, and the debate and campaign is national in scope. What difference does it make if Presidential candidates actually visit Wyoming or not? It's not like if they don't people in Wyoming won't know who is running, or what they stand for, right?

The candidates don't even actually go to small states though since almost all of them lean strongly one way.

[HisMajestyBOB]

It's not a democracy, it's a republic.

If you want more democracy, campaign for your state to join the National Popular Vote bandwagon.
It's up to 132 votes, 49% of the way there.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

Both wrong. We're a kleptocracy.

[Berkut]

I was going to give you the entire song and dance about how the electoral system is important because it means that candidates cannot ignore smaller states in favor of just going where the population is at, but then I got thinking...so what?

These are national elections we are talking about, and the debate and campaign is national in scope. What difference does it make if Presidential candidates actually visit Wyoming or not? It's not like if they don't people in Wyoming won't know who is running, or what they stand for, right?

The candidates don't even actually go to small states though since almost all of them lean strongly one way.

My point is that there really isn't any actual reason for them to go to any particular states, except for the electoral system, which just pushes them go to a select few states, while ignoring most of them.

So it doesn't even do what the one thing that it is supposed to be useful for - keeping smaller states relevant. Instead it just keeps a few small states much more relevant than they ought to be.

[Habbaku]

It's not a democracy, it's a republic.

If you want more democracy, campaign for your state to join the National Popular Vote bandwagon.
It's up to 132 votes, 49% of the way there.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

Both wrong. We're a kleptocracy.

I thought we were an autonomous collective.

[dps]

It's not a democracy, it's a republic.

If you want more democracy, campaign for your state to join the National Popular Vote bandwagon.
It's up to 132 votes, 49% of the way there.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

I think that their plan sucks.  If you want to go to direct popular election of the President, fine, but in that case just amend the Constitution and abolish the Electoral College.

[Ideologue]

It's not a democracy, it's a republic.

If you want more democracy, campaign for your state to join the National Popular Vote bandwagon.
It's up to 132 votes, 49% of the way there.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

Both wrong. We're a kleptocracy.

I thought we were an autonomous collective.

[Razgovory]

It's not a democracy, it's a republic.

If you want more democracy, campaign for your state to join the National Popular Vote bandwagon.
It's up to 132 votes, 49% of the way there.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

I think that their plan sucks.  If you want to go to direct popular election of the President, fine, but in that case just amend the Constitution and abolish the Electoral College.

That would be the best way.

[Slargos]

Now we see the violence inherent in the system.

[jimmy olsen]

It's not a democracy, it's a republic.

If you want more democracy, campaign for your state to join the National Popular Vote bandwagon.
It's up to 132 votes, 49% of the way there.

http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/

I think that their plan sucks.  If you want to go to direct popular election of the President, fine, but in that case just amend the Constitution and abolish the Electoral College.

That would be better, but this way works. The Constitution gives state legislatures the ability to choose electors as they see fit. If they want to do it this way there's no stopping them.

[Valmy]

If all swing states did this the electoral college results per candidate would be virtually indentical every single election wouldn't it?  The same states would go Dem or Republican and the swing states would be split.

That would be nice we wouldn't even have to bother with the general election.

[Eddie Teach]

So in spite of Pennsylvania giving Republicans control of its legislature, Pennsylvania Republicans are so confident the state will go blue in any close election that they'd rather just remove the state's ability to influence the election. 

[DGuller]

I was going to give you the entire song and dance about how the electoral system is important because it means that candidates cannot ignore smaller states in favor of just going where the population is at, but then I got thinking...so what?

These are national elections we are talking about, and the debate and campaign is national in scope. What difference does it make if Presidential candidates actually visit Wyoming or not? It's not like if they don't people in Wyoming won't know who is running, or what they stand for, right?

The candidates don't even actually go to small states though since almost all of them lean strongly one way.

Agreed.  It's not like the present system doesn't lead to states being ignored.  It just leads to different states being ignored (the ones which are not battleground, which is usually 75% of them these days).

[DGuller]

So in spite of Pennsylvania giving Republicans control of its legislature, Pennsylvania Republicans are so confident the state will go blue in any close election that they'd rather just remove the state's ability to influence the election. 

Local vs. federal.  Just because New York City elected Rudy Giuliani doesn't mean that they suddenly became pro-life and wanted to abolish Social Security.