Do you support National Popular Vote?

[FlyingSquirrel]

Poll question: Do you support National Popular Vote?

I don't get it, seem to be getting a lot of flak in this thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x3237713

I know DU has (obviously) a different outlook than the typical cross-section of the country, but I would have expected more support for the idea of choosing a president based on nationwide popular vote instead of the electoral college - especially since Gore was denied the presidency despite winning the popular vote by over half a million votes.

Here's the website: nationalpopularvote.com

So you support electing our Presidents by National Popular Vote instead of the Electoral College?

[Xipe Totec]

1. Where's the doesn't matter choice?

By the time you're choosing between two candidates, the decisions have already been made and fundamentally, there is no difference between the candidates from the point of view of the powers that be.

So choosing between them at this stage, by popular vote or otherwise, makes lick-spittle difference.

Read The Irony of Democracy: An Uncommon Introduction to American Politics.

[FlyingSquirrel]

12. Sorry, I don't agree that there would have been no difference

between GWB and Gore or Kerry.

[baldguy]

20. Al Gore is no different than George Bush? Just how many ways is that bullshit?

[Xipe Totec]

23. Of all the 2008 Democratic presidential contenders,

look at the two that made it to the top.

[wuushew]

2. Fractional-proportional is a better solution

n/t

[cynatnite]

3. I'm not crazy about it...

The nominees would only campaign in big cities like NYC and ignore small town America. They only need to worry about places like LA, Chicago and so on. What's the point in voting if it's the large population areas that decide the presidency?

I think the founding fathers had the right idea with how the president is chosen. They were trying to make sure as many people as possible has a voice.

There has to be a better way. I just don't know what that is.

[last_texas_dem]

15. I don't think the Electoral College really promotes campaigning in all that many states, though...

Small states only receive attention if they "swing" and, even then, not nearly to the extent that larger swing states receive attention. Under the electoral college both biggies like CA, TX, NY, and IL are generally ignored, but so are the vast majority of states with small populations- MT, WY, ID, ND, SD, NE, DE, VT, AK, etc. At least under nationwide popular vote every person in every state's votes would be weighted the same. Massachusetts Republicans, Alaskan Democrats, whatever... your votes could actually manner in the final outcome. Under the Electoral College, far too many votes are "wasted"... Not to mention, how messed-up the disproportionate weighing of votes under the EC is. You can move from CA to WY between two Presidential elections and quadruple the amount that your vote matters! (Of course, if you're a Democrat that won't mean anything anyway since your vote is going to be wasted in a solid red state anyway...)

[FlyingSquirrel]

30. Just think, though, how many Democrats don't bother voting in red states

because they know it won't matter. That would change if we had National Popular Vote. Of course the reverse would occur as well - but the thing is, Republicans tend to vote more, er, religiously. So on balance I'd expect the change to favor us more than them.

[DaveJ]

4. Perhaps this is really about...

Michigan and Florida. That may be the source of the animosity at the moment.

I voted 'yes' because obviously I don't want someone else's vote to matter more than mine.

[jtrockville]

5. We need INSTANT RUNOFF.

Without it, the other details don't matter much to me.

[FlyingSquirrel]

13. I agree with that. I think third party candidates would have an easier

time competing without the Electoral College though.

[bean fidhleir]

27. IRV is considered better than Borda, iirc, but worse than Condorcet or STV

Its main virtue is its simplicity, which is also its weakness. It's so much like FPTP that it encourages FPTP-style tactical voting, specifically voting on the basis of presumed popularity rather than actual preference.

[nevergiveup]

6. I voted no

because I am old and don't like change....but I am supporting Obama....go figure.

[DaveJ]

8. LOL...

I'm older than most. And maybe I don't like change either but it happens anyway, and politics need to change with it in order to maintain stability.

People learn how to cheat the system, if the system isn't 'updated' on occasion.

[conflictgirl]

7. I voted yes even though there's a much bigger issue

We have to be able to trust the election tabulation methods (see: Diebold). As long as we face the risk of vote tampering it really doesn't matter if the winner is chosen by electoral college or popular vote.

[FlyingSquirrel]

14. That's true...

Also a good reason for National Popular Vote in my opinion because it's much more difficult to rig machines on a nationwide basis than just in a few key states that are likely to swing the election. (And not get caught)

[Rage for Order]

9. Should we get rid of the Senate as well?

It's based on the same concept. :shrug:

[newmajority]

29. Well, they're pretty much useless now, aren't they?

I'm holding out a little bit of hope that we might get a few more Senators elected and expand the majority, but the real problem is NOT the majority, it's the fact that a dozen or so DLC senators vote against the party half the time (and it's the important half).

If we had 60 Democratic senators, but 20 of them voted with the Repukes, what good are they?

[nadinbrzezinski]

10. I also support proportional representation and nationally

funded elections... not the broken system that allows only two parties to have a role

[Boojatta]

11. You mean the same old system, each voter giving 100% approval to exactly one candidate...

and not being permitted to express any opinion about any other candidate?

In the Olympics, a judge doesn't just assign a rating of 100% to exactly one of the competitors and express no official opinion about any other competitor. Guess why. Now guess why Nader competes in politics rather than in the Olympics.

Follow this link for more details:
http://www.approvalvoting.org/

[FlyingSquirrel]

16. Seems like about the same as the rest of the country, then

perhaps slightly higher since it's about 70% of the country and I'm seeing 78% here so far.

[uppityperson]

17. Yes with runoff and with verifiable non-cheatable vote tabulation. And an apology.

I am sorry I was an ass to you when you started DU. I was recently burned by a troll, and other factors, but I was rude and nasty and I apologize. Glad to see you stuck it out.

[Jack_DeLeon]

18. Although I'm from a big state I dont support going popular vote only...

I think the founding fathers were wise to structure the vote as they did. Its better that we have our candidates campaign as they do so the voters can learn more about them as they tour the country rather than them just touring a few big cities in a few big states.

[drmeow]

19. We need total reform

to our election system before it will make a difference. Instant run-off elections, campaign finance restrictions, some sort of fixing of the media so it is either publicly biased (as in "Fox, right wing and unbalanced") or truly neutral, proportional representation, re-enfranchisement of felons after they have "paid their debt to society" - etc.

[MurrayDelph]

21. Not until there is a verifiable accounting across the states

otherwise states like Florida and Texas would "find" more Republican votes than there are voters.

[B Calm]

22. and with a paper trail!

[raebrek]

24. I support Jesse "The Governor" Ventura's suggestion

Mr. Ventura suggested on the "Tonight Show" last night that there be a third selection marked "None of the above". I think that would be a good idea. Then the gubernment would get an idea of who doesn't like any of the candidates.

Raebrek!!!

[UTUSN]

25. Plus, REGIONAL PRIMARIES, no earlier than May. NO caucuses

Yes, I know that "no caucuses" will be taken as code.


Back during the California recall, the local radio talkshow wingnut was aghast that *I* (Dem/Lib) could be against the recall. He asked, didn't I KNOW that the recall gizmo had been a Lib/Progressive innovation during the early part of the 20th Century?


Uh, yes, I knew that, but as we saw in California, it was MISUSED/ABUSED, with Darryl ISSA sinking tons of money to fuel it, it was NOT the initiative of the people.


And the same goes for caucuses. A well organized campaign operation, with super-movitated followers, easily dominates the SOFT popular votes that are the majority.

[hokies4ever]

26. When would you be able to call the election?

Seriously, when would you be able to call the election? Supporters of this idea need to look at its practicality also.

On another point, it will never garner enough support to pass as an amendment. The small states will never vote for it, plain and simple. It's a bill that would be DOA, like the McCain-Clinton gas tax holiday idiocy.

[FlyingSquirrel]

31. It doesn't need to pass in all states, and the beauty is that it isn't a Constitutional Amendment.

It doesn't need to be signed by the president. It doesn't need to pass the US Congress at all - just needs to pass in each individual state, and not even in all the states. Just enough so that the states that it passes in total over half the electoral votes. Then it doesn't matter what the remaining states do - the states that have passed it will allocate their electoral votes for the winner of the popular vote and therefore that person will win the presidency. Regardless of the other states that are still winner-take-all.

[pleah]

28. Yes. After the eight years of

Godless Warmongering Bastard. Yes.

[Bill McBlueState]

32. people need to understand why we have the Electoral College

The Electoral College isn't in the Constitution because anyone thought it was a fair method. It was a last-ditch compromise to get the Constitution ratified.

230 years later, I think it's time we honored the principle of one person, one vote.

[Telly Savalas]

33. No. Folks who live in states with small populations are better people

than those of us who live in more populous states, therefore their vote should count for more.

[Chan790]

34. Absolutely positively not.

It's one of those bad ideas that people buy into easily, not realizing it's a terrible idea designed expressly to fuck them...much like the "flat tax" is designed to fuck everybody but the rich.

If the NPV passes we all might as well give up the fight and accept the permanent Republican America.