Massachusetts Attempts To Nullify Their Citizens Votes In Presidential Elections

[Patranus]

The current system of electing the president ensures that the candidates do not reach out to all of the states and their voters. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or care about the voter concerns in the dozens of states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the state-by-state winner-take-all rule (not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution, but now used by 48 states), under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.

That would be the fault of the voters in that state for being in the bag for a candidate.

 

[woolfe9999]

Anyone notice that "kohler's" 12 total posts on this forum are in this thread, and another thread about the electoral college from March of this year, and that the posts consist of cut and pastes from nationalpopularvote.com?

I'm all in favor of using the popular vote, but I think discussion boards are for discussion, not spam.

- wolf

 

[Daverino]

How is that philosophically different than the current system, which nullifies the votes of everyone who did not vote in the majority? With the current electoral college setup, if 49% of the voters went with a second candidate, all of their votes are nullifies because the 100% of the electoral votes will go to the desires of the 51%.

 

[herkulease]

Massachusetts idea is rather stupid. But I really see no point in changing things when in our history the winner of EC but loser popular vote has occurred 3 times. before dubya it only once I believe was the popular vote extremely close bt. JFK and Nixon. Maybe others but I know for sure JFK/Nixon was really close.

Is it perfect? No. I'm in california sometimes there's really no point in voting. Either the guy I want will win the state or will lose regardless of my vote. So I save myself some ink and postage.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

How is that philosophically different than the current system, which nullifies the votes of everyone who did not vote in the majority? With the current electoral college setup, if 49% of the voters went with a second candidate, all of their votes are nullifies because the 100% of the electoral votes will go to the desires of the 51%.

It's different because it's based off the NATIONAL popular vote not the state popular vote. Why vote in MA if your state's electoral votes are determined by people in other states?

 

[Moonbeam]

http://www.stateline.org/live/details/story?contentId=499869

Hope the people of Massachusetts enjoy not being represented.

I find it rather useless to your absurd posts with facts that reveal their absurdity since you are absurdity proof by definition. I can, however, point out your ignorance in other ways, namely that you know nothing it seems about pronoun predicate agreement:

Pronoun
A pronoun is a substitute for a noun. It refers to a person, place, thing, feeling, or quality but does not refer to it by its name. The pronoun in the following sample sentence is bolded.

The critique of Plato's Republic was written from a contemporary point of view. It was an in-depth analysis of Plato's opinions about possible governmental forms.
Antecedent
An antecedent is the word, phrase, or clause to which a pronoun refers, understood by the context. The antecedent in the following sample sentence is bolded.

The critique of Plato's Republic was written from a contemporary point of view. It was an in-depth analysis of Plato's opinions about possible governmental forms.

While the pronouns I and you can be replaced by nouns, the context of a sentence does not always require the nouns to make clear to which persons I and you refer. However, the third person pronouns (he, she, it, they) almost always derive their meaning from their antecedents or the words for which they stand. Remember that pronouns in the third person communicate nothing unless the reader knows what they mean:

Agreement
A pronoun must agree with its antecedent in three ways:

Person refers to the quality of being.

Number is the quality that distinguishes between singular (one entity) and plural (numerous entities).

Gender is the quality that distinguishes the entities as masculine or feminine.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In short, an intelligent person would have wrote:

Massachusetts Attempts To Nullify It's Citizens Votes In Presidential Elections, you dummy.

 

[Patranus]

How is that philosophically different than the current system, which nullifies the votes of everyone who did not vote in the majority? With the current electoral college setup, if 49% of the voters went with a second candidate, all of their votes are nullifies because the 100% of the electoral votes will go to the desires of the 51%.

The votes are given to the state. Some states split their electoral votes along the popular vote.

The point is that if 90% of the people vote for a candidate while the popular votes goes for someone else, that states votes would go towards the candidate who the majority of the state didn't vote for.

 

[boomerang]

Once you guys figure out what this is really all about, the opinions will quickly and sharply divide across party lines. I'll give you a hint, it's all about ensuring that the candidate desired by high population areas wins.

What we have now is not perfect, but I have heard no compelling reason to change it.

Edit: I'd like to thank kohler for the information I needed. The following paragraph along with other information from the site he linked to helped me form my opinion.

The bill has been endorsed by organizations such as Common Cause, FairVote, Sierra Club, NAACP, National Black Caucus of State Legislators, ACLU, the National Latino Congreso, Asian American Action Fund, DEMOS, National Coalition on Black Civic Participation, Public Citizen, U.S. PIRG, the Brennan Center for Justice, the League of Women Voters, and Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund.

 

[Blackjack200]

The votes are given to the state. Some states split their electoral votes along the popular vote.

The point is that if 90% of the people vote for a candidate while the popular votes goes for someone else, that states votes would go towards the candidate who the majority of the state didn't vote for.

And if 51% of a state votes for Candidate A, that candidate gets all the electoral votes. How is that any more fair to the 49% who voted for Candidate B, but whose state is considered to unanimously support Candidate A?

 

[Blackjack200]

Once you guys figure out what this is really all about, the opinions will quickly and sharply divide across party lines. I'll give you a hint, it's all about ensuring that the candidate who gets more votes wins.

What we have now is not perfect, but I have heard no compelling reason to change it.

Edit: I'd like to thank kohler for the information I needed. The following paragraph along with other information from the site he linked to helped me form my opinion.

ftfy

No charge.

 

[hal2kilo]

This thread brings the lulz. On the other hand, there is finally a Patranus thread that very nearly warrants a serious post. That's got to count for something!

Eh..Not so much.

 

[Throckmorton]

Once you guys figure out what this is really all about, the opinions will quickly and sharply divide across party lines. I'll give you a hint, it's all about ensuring that the candidate desired by high population areas wins.

What we have now is not perfect, but I have heard no compelling reason to change it.

Edit: I'd like to thank kohler for the information I needed. The following paragraph along with other information from the site he linked to helped me form my opinion.

If most of the population is in high population areas, why shouldn't the candidate favored by high population areas win?

Why do conservatives believe that a rural individual's vote is worth more than an urban/suburban individual's?

One person, one vote. It's that simple. You can come up with all kinds of rationales and justifications, but just shut up and and accept that the only fair way to elect a president is for every vote to count exactly the same.

 

[nonlnear]

If most of the population is in high population areas, why shouldn't the candidate favored by high population areas win?

Why do conservatives believe that a rural individual's vote is worth more than an urban/suburban individual's?

The idea that urban folk should have a diminished political voice stems back to the urbanization that resulted from the industrial revolution. As nominally democratic institutions were beginning to emerge, the landed gentry needed a rationale to keep political power attached to the land rather than to the people.

This insidious logic has been merged with an infantile pastoral myth that the virtue of the "good small farmers" must be preserved from the evil city folk who allegedly want to kill them with votes. The irony of it all is that the supposedly oh-so-virtuous small family farmers are being destroyed by Big Ag lobbyists who already own the rural politicians who supposedly serve and protect the few remaining hapless yeomen of middle America who have managed to weather the government sponsored expansion of Big Ag. (The rhetorical juxtaposition is not so ironic when viewed tactically; it is standard fare for corporatist lobbyists to take romantic sentiments and, for marketing purposes, marry them to political mechanisms which are the very antithesis of the real thrust of those sentiments.)

 

[Blackjack200]

(The rhetorical juxtaposition is not so ironic when viewed tactically; it is standard fare for corporatist lobbyists to take romantic sentiments and, for marketing purposes, marry them to political mechanisms which are the very antithesis of the real thrust of those sentiments.)

Yes, you can see many examples of this in the political landscape.

 

[boomerang]

If most of the population is in high population areas, why shouldn't the candidate favored by high population areas win?

Why do conservatives believe that a rural individual's vote is worth more than an urban/suburban individual's?

One person, one vote. It's that simple. You can come up with all kinds of rationales and justifications, but just shut up and and accept that the only fair way to elect a president is for every vote to count exactly the same.

This is not one man one vote. It may be a step in that direction, but one man one vote it ain't.

 

[joebloggs10]

One person, one vote. It's that simple. You can come up with all kinds of rationales and justifications, but just shut up and and accept that the only fair way to elect a president is for every vote to count exactly the same.

Not when the group doing the electing is a collection of individual states coming together to elect a joint government with the explicit goal of ensuring that the most populous state(s) can't automatically dictate who the winner is.

 

[nonlnear]

Not when the group doing the electing is a collection of individual states coming together to elect a joint government with the explicit goal of ensuring that the most populous state(s) can't automatically dictate who the winner is.

This is clearly not an explicit goal of the electoral college, as (i) it is not explicitly stated in the Constitution as a design goal of the electoral system, and (ii) there is nothing to preclude the most populous state from having a number of electors large enough to give a majority, should its population become large enough to produce an overwhelming number of electors.

Now perhaps it's an implicit goal, but that's a separate matter entirely.

 

[cubby1223]

Isn't it the State Legislatures who choose where the Votes go. IIRC, the current system(Voter selected) isn't even the Original System(State Politician selected). If that's the case, there's certainly no Constitutional problem here and to say they nullified their Citizens Votes is ridiculous(notes OP and nods knowingly).

When voters of Texas have greater influence on the votes that come out of the state of Massachusetts, than do the voters of Massachusetts...

 

[sandorski]

When voters of Texas have greater influence on the votes that come out of the state of Massachusetts, than do the voters of Massachusetts...

They won't.

 

[piasabird]

Only landowners should be able to vote.

 

[werepossum]

Actually, it's fairly accurate. So, let's say Palin runs against Obama in '12. Obama will of course take MA, since it's MA. Palin takes 50% of the popular vote, Obama takes 49%, and 1% goes to other parties. Despite the fact that MA voted for Obama, the electoral votes go to the candidate that MA residents do not want. Do you see it now? It may or may not end up changing an outcome, but it's the principle of the matter.

Clearly you don't pay attention to Massachusetts. Obama wins Massachusetts, Palin wins national popular vote, Massachusetts immediately passes an emergency bill changing how it allocates its electoral votes and gives them back to the Democrat.

 

[Jadow]

I say keep the electoral college so that we can have really fun debates every four years (so and so needs this state...) and it keeps election night really fun and exciting.

 

[bullbert]

STATES RIGHTS!!!

What the heck are you talking about. The 10th amendment has been dead for decades. The States no longer have any rights.