Quote :

" Proposals to change election process DAVID INGRAM, Charlotte Observer, Wed, May. 16, 2007 Voting in North Carolina could look very different in the years ahead. There could be a different deadline for voters to register. There could be an earlier date for the N.C. presidential primary or caucus. There could even be a different way to appoint the Electoral College, which picks the president. Perhaps the most historic change could be in how North Carolina appoints people to the Electoral College -- the 538-member group that, under the U.S. Constitution, decides the presidency. As in most other states, North Carolina's 15 electors vote for the winner of the state's popular vote. Under a bill sponsored by Sen. Dan Clodfelter, a Charlotte Democrat, the electors would vote for the winner of the national vote. He said the bill would draw more attention to North Carolina, which has a low profile in presidential elections, and create a national election for president. "That's the one and only office that represents the people of the nation," Clodfelter said. In a historic vote, the bill got through the state Senate this week, and it is expected to get a hearing in the House. The vote, though, was along partisan lines, with Republicans arguing the bill would help Democrats. Small states, Republicans point out, have disproportionate clout in the Electoral College, and those states -- particularly out West -- tend to vote for the GOP in presidential elections. A national popular vote would eliminate that advantage. Among other voting bills under consideration: • Eligible voters could register to vote up until a few days before Election Day, under a bill sponsored by Rep. Deborah Ross, D-Wake. Current law sets the deadline 25 days before an election. The idea, which conventional wisdom suggests would help Democrats, won House approval in March and a Senate hearing is expected soon. • Several bills would require a more strict form of identification, such as a driver's license, at the polls. Current law does not require identification in most cases. It would likely help Republicans, so the idea has gotten little traction in the Democrat-controlled General Assembly. Under legislative rules, most bills that have not passed the House or the Senate by May 24 are finished for the year. "

Quote :

" The Death of Voting in North Carolina By Daren Bakst, John Locke Foundation May 11, 2007 Some North Carolina legislators would like to ignore the will of North Carolinians when it comes to Presidential elections. If a plan introduced in the legislature gets passed, and it might, North Carolina would make a compact with other states to support the Presidential candidate that receives the most votes in the nation. This plan, referred to as national popular voting, is a response to the rare situation when the President wins an election despite receiving fewer popular votes than the losing candidate. The biggest problem with the plan is that it ignores the will of North Carolinians. If every single citizen of North Carolina voted for one candidate, the state would still have to support the opposing candidate if that individual received more national popular votes. This plan should be called the anti-North Carolina popular voting plan. In California, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed the California version of the bill arguing “I cannot support…giving all our electoral votes to the candidate that a majority of Californians did not support.” This whole approach to voting also ignores the fact that the existing Electoral College voting system was set up, in part, to protect the specific interests of states. New York, for example, may have very different interests than North Carolina. If a candidate were pushing policies that would hurt North Carolina, and the majority of voters opposed that candidate, it wouldn’t make a difference in this new voting system. North Carolina not only would have to ignore the majority of voters but also support a candidate that would hurt the state. The citizens of other states, along with those states’ interests, should never take priority over the right for North Carolinians to have a voice in Presidential elections. It is true that in any election year, all states won’t be considered battleground states. As a result, one individual vote may have less importance than in other years. This isn’t a permanent reality though. The next election cycle, the battleground states will change. If this new plan were passed, the system would have permanent flaws that would disenfranchise voters. In a national popular voting system, smaller states would be ignored. The system also is biased against rural and small-town voters. In the current system, candidates have to battle throughout a state if they hope to gain the necessary number of voters to win the electoral votes. In the national popular voting system, they are better off simply going to the major population centers of the state. A national popular voting system also would create the possibility that a candidate could win an election even though the individual has won far fewer states than the opposing candidate. In the current system, a candidate has to gain the wide approval of many interests and the support of many states. There also is an incredible level of arrogance in trying to change a system that has worked so well throughout the nation’s history, simply by passing some hastily considered legislation. Some legislators apparently think they know better than our Founding Fathers on how to develop elections for President. There are serious constitutional issues as well, such as whether the proposed compact between the states violates the Compact Clause of the United States Constitution. Regardless, this clearly is an end run around the Constitution. If the idea of a national popular vote is such a great idea, then proponents of the system should go through the amendment process just like anyone else that is trying to change the most important governing document in history. If such a plan were passed, North Carolina will be letting out-of-state citizens decide the candidate that the state will support in Presidential elections. The legislature will be saying that the voices of North Carolinians don’t matter. It will be a sad day when North Carolinians have to defend their right to have a voice in Presidential elections. Unfortunately, that day has arrived. "

The vote went straight down party lines. Dems for, Repubs Agin it.

This appears to me as obvious gerry-rigging of the voting process to help democrats. Democrats traditionally trail republicans in campaign money. By narrowing spending on the areas of concentrated voters (big cities -mostly populated by dems), the democrat party won't have to waste campaign money on smaller states like ours.

I'm not ready to abandon the electoral college yet. I'd like my vote in North Carolina count in North Carolina.

[Edited on May 16, 2007 at 10:45 PM. Reason : .]

5/16/2007 10:42:48 PM

I'm not a 100% sure of the details of all this, but if the Repulicans are all lining up against this, it must be good for us somehow.

5/16/2007 10:44:57 PM

I would like to see a Maine style electoral procedure with the electoral votes corresponding to district and the majority getting the the senate votes

5/16/2007 10:59:42 PM

Quote :

"This appears to me as obvious gerry-rigging of the voting process to help democrats. Democrats traditionally trail republicans in campaign money. By narrowing spending on the areas of concentrated voters (big cities -mostly populated by dems), the democrat party won't have to waste campaign money on smaller states like ours."

I think the Dems are raising plenty of money, and don't act like the republicans are spending a lot in small towns and other low population areas to get those votes. This makes sense to me.

5/16/2007 11:11:44 PM

Quote :

"the electors would vote for the winner of the national vote."

Wait.

What?


I mean, seriously, what? Am I misunderstanding this, or is it just the dumbest fucking thing in the history of things?

5/16/2007 11:33:32 PM

^ I don't know about the dumbest thing EVER, but it seems pretty dumb. Primarily because that it takes an already goofy electoral college system, and makes it even goofier. It's well known that the electoral college was designed to give more sparsely populated states more votes, but considering the nature of politics nowadays, I think this is an anachronistic moot point. Candidates already focus on the more states with the most electoral votes and thus the population centers, so this isn't really an issue either.

If they really wanted to shake things up, they should just split the electoral college votes proportionally, and also add third parties to the ballots.

5/16/2007 11:45:23 PM

the electoral college needs to go, im for this

5/16/2007 11:46:17 PM

Quote :

"Some legislators apparently think they know better than our Founding Fathers on how to develop elections for President."

5/16/2007 11:59:29 PM

um, give me one reason why the person who wins the most votes should not be the president of the US?

5/17/2007 12:02:54 AM

Because then Al Gore would have been the President.

5/17/2007 12:03:57 AM

Is this bill like the California version which does a similar thing ONLY if every other state in the Union passes something similar? If it's not, then its a really stupid idea because it heavily dilutes the voice of the people of North Carolina in any presidental race.

If they insist on changing the way we elect our electoral college, then I agree with the idea of having them selected district by district.

5/17/2007 12:10:43 AM

^

Exactly....its retarded b/c it ignores NC voters b/c all the other states are still using the normal system.

5/17/2007 12:12:11 AM

^^That would just make too much sense.

Quote :

"I mean, seriously, what? Am I misunderstanding this, or is it just the dumbest fucking thing in the history of things? "

Well, I can't argue that. I'm not a fan of the electoral college, but it looks ok compared to this stupid idea.

5/17/2007 12:14:01 AM

to get rid of the electoral college would take a constitutional ammendment which would require 3/4 of states ratification right? this way they only need enough states to get 270 electoral votes to pass the thing and the electoral college is essentially defunct

i thought this was a clever way around a constitutional ammendment irregardless of whether you favor the popular vote or not

5/17/2007 12:20:12 AM

Quote :

"give me one reason why the person who wins the most votes should not be the president of the US?"

The Constitution for one. It was designed to put limits on power, and that includes the unvarnished will of the people. We are supposed to be a republic, not a pure democracy. We divided power at the national level and also established federalism to protect us against tyranny- and this includes the tyranny of the masses.

The founders didn't want either the senate, the supreme court or the president elected by popular vote.

If tradition doesn't thrill you. Keep in mind that with a straight popular vote, the most populous regions would run rampant over the less populated regions. we would be essentially writing off large sections of the country- inviting regional friction and conflict.

The electoral college forces presidential candidates to seek support through-out the country.

The Founders were wise in not setting up a pure democracy. But if everyone is gung ho on the idea, they should pass an amendment and not try to do it this way. As mentioned before, the states that pass this bill will be at the mercy of the other states..their votes will simply not matter.

5/17/2007 12:30:04 AM

So far only one state has passed this. It still has to pass the house and the gov to be law here, and once that happens it would require some large amount of other states to do it also before becoming law. Dont get your panties in a bunch.

5/17/2007 12:31:10 AM

The best reason for the electoral college: it makes the administration of elections possible and even cheap.

It is difficult to explain, but easy given examples. Let us imagine a fictional state which is resoundingly Democrat, such as Quebec. The Governor, legislature, elections board, and all regulators are Democrats. Now, as everyone in the state is a Democrat, lets imagine, and they really want the Democrats to win the national election, might administrative bias interfere with the election? Under the electoral college, no amount of corruption can sway the election: all 12 votes go to the Democrat regardless.

However, under a plurality election, ballot stuffing could easily sway the election. Whenever an election is close, we would need to immediately launch a nationwide recount of every small town and big city with particular emphasis in places wholly controlled by one party or the other. We would be shocked to find states that managed to attain 101% turnout... As the threat of localized corruption is so great, we would have no choice but to nationalize the voting process (all elections would become a federal issue).

Which brings us to the second good reason: who appoints the people that administer elections? Under the electoral college they are locally appointed at the state level. The people who control the voting process are the very individuals whose votes are being counted. Well enough. But, forced to move administration to the federal level, this would no longer be the case. Elections in Texas and New York would be administered by individuals appointed by the ruling federal political party, be they Democrats or Republicans, with the same interest inflating votes in matching states and misplacing votes in rival states.

If you want to make a change then consider apportioning the electoral votes in proportion to the states votes. If the state was split 50/50, then each candidate gets 50% of the votes. But anything more substantial would have unintended and potentially distressing results.

The reason NC Senators voted for this is obvious: thanks to gerrymandering, while most North Carolinians are Republican we have a thoroughly Democrat controlled state government. As such, it is in their power to at least make it possible for the state to elect a Democrat to the White House by making the state vote for the national popular vote, since state voters seem unwilling to vote that way by themselves.

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 12:37 AM. Reason : .,.]

5/17/2007 12:33:20 AM

Quote :

"Under the electoral college, no amount of corruption can sway the election"

For "example" please see FL-13 in 2006

Quote :

"A second good reason is who appoints the people that administer elections. Under the electoral college they are locally appointed at the state level. The people who control the voting process are the very individuals whose votes are being counted. Well enough. But, forced to move administration to the federal level, this would no longer be the case. Elections in Texas and New York are both being administered by individuals appointed by the ruling political party, be they Democrats or Republicans, with the same interest inflating votes in matching states and misplacing votes in rival states. "

For "example" please see Ohio in 2004 or Florida in 2000

Corruption is neither stopped nor aided by the electoral college.

Quote :

"thanks to gerrymandering, while most North Carolinians are Republican"

I didnt know you could gerrymander an entire state. That explains Easley and Jim Hunt and Sanford and Edwards in 98, or I guess it doesnt. It also doesnt explain Perdue and Moore and Cooper and Jim Long and oh I guess you get the point.

I also didnt know you could gerrymander counties. That must explain why 65 of 100 counties in the state have Democratic Sheriffs.

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 12:44 AM. Reason : registration by party 2.5 million dems 1.9 million reps]

5/17/2007 12:42:49 AM

Sen. Clodfelter is also on board with S195 which would allow someone to walk into an absentee voting location...present his utility bill or a bank statement...be allowed to register to vote and then vote.

Yes they claim they will check your ss# later to see if you lied, but I have my doubts they will follow through effectively.

Banks (esp. Bank of America and its welcoming of lawbreaking immigrants) and utility companies are not interested if you are a legal citizen when you sign up for their service. This bill basically makes it easier for non-citizens to vote.

5/17/2007 2:12:19 AM

Quote :

"LoneSnark: The reason NC Senators voted for this is obvious: thanks to gerrymandering, while most North Carolinians are Republican we have a thoroughly Democrat controlled state government."

Actually:



(Source: NC State Board of Elections http://www.sboe.state.nc.us/voterreg/other/party.htm)

5/17/2007 2:52:09 AM

Quote :

"This appears to me as obvious gerry-rigging of the voting process to help democrats. Democrats traditionally trail republicans in campaign money. By narrowing spending on the areas of concentrated voters (big cities -mostly populated by dems), the democrat party won't have to waste campaign money on smaller states like ours. I'm not ready to abandon the electoral college yet. I'd like my vote in North Carolina count in North Carolina."

Is today opposite day or what?

1. North Carolina is not a small state. We are 10th by population.

2. Because of the electoral college system, national campaigns of BOTH parties largely ignore North Carolina. What doublespeak are you going to use to show that this is somehow good for North Carolina?


[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 3:12 AM. Reason : l;']

5/17/2007 2:56:15 AM

Figures that Republicans would vote against anything that would allow more people to vote (re: the registration deadline).

Quote :

"Small states, Republicans point out, have disproportionate clout in the Electoral College, and those states "

so its okay for other states to get more representation? Oh yeah, its because they vote GOP, I guess the concept of one person = one vote is scary to them. *snicker*

Quote :

"Some North Carolina legislators would like to ignore the will of North Carolinians when it comes to Presidential elections. If a plan introduced in the legislature gets passed, and it might, North Carolina would make a compact with other states to support the Presidential candidate that receives the most votes in the nation."

I believe North Carolinians GET represented in the national vote talley don't they? I mean what happens to the 40% of the state population that vote for the losing guy, not a single electoral vote for them. Someone needs to tell these people its a NATIONAL office, therefore everyone should get precisely equal representation when voting for it, regardless of what state they live in (Oh yeah I forgot, the current unfair system supports the GOP, how convienent).

Quote :

"What doublespeak are you going to use to show that this is somehow good for North Carolina?"

Probably the same doublespeak they used with Iraq for the last 5 years.

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 3:02 AM. Reason : ]

5/17/2007 3:01:03 AM

Quote :

"Some legislators apparently think they know better than our Founding Fathers on how to develop elections for President."

Quote :

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors..."

- Constitution Article I Section 2

I don't know about you but it looks like they WANTED the State Legislature to decide how the Electors were chosen.



[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 3:11 AM. Reason : I just realized that was from the John Locke Foundation, that explains it.]

5/17/2007 3:11:08 AM

More blatant nonsense:

Quote :

"If tradition doesn't thrill you. Keep in mind that with a straight popular vote, the most populous regions would run rampant over the less populated regions. we would be essentially writing off large sections of the country- inviting regional friction and conflict. The electoral college forces presidential candidates to seek support through-out the country."

Unadulterated drivel. Try looking at a map and a US almanac at some point. Here are the top 10 states by population:

1. California
2. Texas
3. New York
4. Florida
5. Illinois
6. Pennsylvania
7. Ohio
8. Michigan
9. Georgia
10. North Carolina

If campaigns focused on only these states, exactly what region would "run rampant over the less populated regions?"


While on the topic of fair elections, I don't suppose voting rights for DC residents are on the agenda for any "principled" conservatives, are they?

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 3:37 AM. Reason : dsfs]

5/17/2007 3:13:59 AM

Quote :

"The electoral college forces presidential candidates to seek support through-out the country"

Swing states in the 2004 election:

* Oregon
* New Mexico
* Nevada
* Colorado

* Iowa (midwest)
* Ohio
* West Virginia
* Michigan
* Minnesota
* Wisconsin
* Pennsylvania (midwest/east)

* Florida ("south"/east)

* Maine (inconsequential)
* New Hampshire (inconsequential)

The electoral college forced candidates to spread out so much, they barely even had to go to the south or the east! It also does not cause one region to dominate over the others, causing regional friction

Needless to say, all the electoral college does is focus the attention of elections on swing states. It has nothing to do with protecting the minority. It has everything to do with giving the big flip-floppers a larger say (I always find it funny that the swing states ate up that flip-flopper rhetoric).

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

Quote :

"Some legislators apparently think they know better than our Founding Fathers on how to develop elections for President."

And I have to respond to this idiocy, too.

The founding fathers were legislators. They were no different in character or wisdom than the legislators we have today. The only difference is that they started with a relatively blank canvas.

Furthermore, the founding fathers have often been wrong -- at least 27 times, not counting hundreds of other laws that they didn't even think about. You don't hear anyone (smart) accusing the founding fathers of being presumptuous twits because they made refinements to the roman republic and greek democracy.

The above quote is an example of the appeal to authority logical fallacy. The fact that the quote-writer and some posters are so quick to accept this argument says a lot about their ability to think rationally.


[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 5:07 AM. Reason : kl;]

5/17/2007 4:40:51 AM

Quote :

"The biggest problem with the plan is that it ignores the will of North Carolinians. If every single citizen of North Carolina voted for one candidate, the state would still have to support the opposing candidate if that individual received more national popular votes. This plan should be called the anti-North Carolina popular voting plan."

What a stupid argument.

The country elects the President, not North Carolina. Sometimes, North Carolina will inevitably support the loser.

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 7:14 AM. Reason : .]

5/17/2007 7:13:14 AM

Quote :

"I'm not a 100% sure of the details of all this, but if the Repulicans are all lining up against this, it must be good for us somehow."

Except in North Carolina. If all the NC Democrats are behind this then it probably has about 50 tax increase riders to go along with it.

Quote :

"national campaigns of BOTH parties largely ignore North Carolina"

So you really want 4 political attack adds during every commercial break come election time?

^I don't see a problem with that argument. If the will of North Carolinians happens to support the loser then why shouldn't the state use their Electoral College votes to reflect the will of the people? And what about the case where one candidate is winning the popular vote, losing the Electoral College vote, and North Carolina is in the position that Florida/Ohio was in during the 2000/2004 elections? So using the quoted example "If every single citizen of North Carolina voted for one candidate", in this case the guy losing the Electoral College vote, then there would be a lot of pissed off voters.

It should be obvious why this proposal is stupid. It places the power of North Carolina's Electoral College vote in the hands of people that aren't even voting in this state.

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 8:01 AM. Reason : -]

5/17/2007 7:39:18 AM

North Carolina should just split its electoral votes based on the way the state votes. This is a much more reasonable and sane solution.

5/17/2007 7:56:46 AM

reasonable and sane have no place in politics n00b

5/17/2007 8:00:52 AM

Yea, politics is one of the few places where Occam's Razor has no place

5/17/2007 8:11:15 AM

Quote :

"I would like to see a Maine style electoral procedure with the electoral votes corresponding to district and the majority getting the the senate votes"

Quote :

"North Carolina should just split its electoral votes based on the way the state votes."

this solution seems like a no-brainer to me. The proposal (to vote the way the country votes) is retarded. casting the electoral votes according to district just makes sense. It still serves the general purpose that the electoral college was intended to serve, which is abstract the votes above the individual level and make sure underpopulated areas and states still get a fair amount of sway. For the most underpopulated states, this probably wouldn't even make a difference. For example, a midwestern state with 3 electoral votes generally votes republican as a whole, so now all 3 votes go republican. It's a fair bet that each of the 3 districts will vote republican too, so there is no difference. The important difference is for big states with lots of electoral votes. it's insane that all 34 votes from Texas, for example, should go to a single party, even if only 52% of the votes in the whole state went to that party. Those votes should be split up according to district, 16-18 or whatever

5/17/2007 8:30:25 AM

Quote :

"^I don't see a problem with that argument. If the will of North Carolinians happens to support the loser then why shouldn't the state use their Electoral College votes to reflect the will of the people? And what about the case where one candidate is winning the popular vote, losing the Electoral College vote, and North Carolina is in the position that Florida/Ohio was in during the 2000/2004 elections? [QUOTE]So using the quoted example "If every single citizen of North Carolina voted for one candidate", in this case the guy losing the Electoral College vote, then there would be a lot of pissed off voters. It should be obvious why this proposal is stupid. It places the power of North Carolina's Electoral College vote in the hands of people that aren't even voting in this state."

You just described the 1860 election where Abraham Lincoln was not even on the ballot here and still won the election. At the end of the day, it only matters who wins, so say Republicans and Democrats on telling me why I should not waste my vote on a third party. So if you think that's stupid, take it up with them.

As for North Carolinians not being able to vote for President in this case, they will, one vote equals one vote is equal to one vote everywhere else. An elector does not represent my will. Never has, never will. My vote should count the same for President and carry the same weight, regardless of whether I live in North Carolina, California, or Wyoming.

3,501,007 North Carolinians voted for President in 2004. We have 15 electoral votes. That is one electoral vote per 233,401 people.

243,428 Wyomingites voted for President in 2004. They have 3 electoral votes. That is 1 electoral vote per 81,143 people.

Why are you arguing for a voter in Wyoming to have three times more voice than you?

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 8:55 AM. Reason : .]

5/17/2007 8:51:54 AM

Quote :

"For "example" please see Ohio in 2004 or Florida in 2000 Corruption is neither stopped nor aided by the electoral college."

Yes, see Ohio or Florida as evidence that in a close national election (2004 was not close, but I digress) corruption in every other state of the nation had no impact on the result. Ballot stuffing in North Carolina, for example, would not have swayed the outcome one bit. As such, all the investigative effort could be directed at a single state, be it Florida or Ohio.

I thought the Electoral College was apportioned by population; perhaps that equation needs revamping.

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 9:14 AM. Reason : .,.]

5/17/2007 9:13:12 AM

Quote :

"An elector does not represent my will. Never has, never will."

The same could be said about the President, Vice Prez, Gov, Sen, Legislator, or any other elected official. Thats how a democracy works. Majority wins. Majority vote tells electors what to do.

Quote :

"I thought the Electoral College was apportioned by population; perhaps that equation needs revamping."

It is...and its reapportioned every 10 years based on the census. However, every state and DC gets a minimum of 3 votes based on represenation in Congress, so no one will ever go lower than that. If memory serves, NC gained an electoral vote a few years back?

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 9:24 AM. Reason : .]

5/17/2007 9:22:50 AM

Quote :

"I thought the Electoral College was apportioned by population; perhaps that equation needs revamping. "

It isn't directly proportional. That is why a Wyoming citizen's vote counts 15 times as much as a Californian's.

5/17/2007 9:31:22 AM

Quote :

"It is difficult to explain, but easy given examples. Let us imagine a fictional state which is resoundingly Democrat, such as Quebec. The Governor, legislature, elections board, and all regulators are Democrats. Now, as everyone in the state is a Democrat, lets imagine, and they really want the Democrats to win the national election, might administrative bias interfere with the election? Under the electoral college, no amount of corruption can sway the election: all 12 votes go to the Democrat regardless."

People are probably jumping all over this since you didn't qualify your argument correctly. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think what you meant was that corruption in one state doesn't fuck up the whole country's vote when using the Electoral College. Because under your scenario, corruption could sway the state's vote if the elections board fixes the vote. Obviously, many people claim that Florida was a "fixed" vote in 2000, so I think this point needs no further explanation.

However, let's imagine a crazy scenario with a popular vote election all around. If the elections board in one state massively stuffs the ballot box, that could have a major effect on the national election. Let's say that Wyoming somehow churns out 6 million votes. With the electoral college, that's only 3 votes still. With the popular vote, though... Obviously such a scenario is ridiculous, as people would naturally be asking why the hell Wyoming had that many voters...

Moreover, this legislation opens up NC to the influence of corruption IN OTHER STATES. If CA decides to stuff the ballot boxes then it wouldn't be as noticable as the Wyoming scenario. However, CA stuffing the boxes could legitimately affect the popular vote. So, CA's corruption would affect the NC vote.

Quote :

"I don't know about you but it looks like they WANTED the State Legislature to decide how the Electors were chosen. "

This may be the case, but it still implies that Electors must be chosen. The intent of the Electors is to have them represent the will of the people the represent and only the will of those people. This legislation flies in the face of such a notion.

Quote :

"I thought the Electoral College was apportioned by population; perhaps that equation needs revamping. "

I can't tell if you are being facetious or not, but you do know that the EC is divied up by representation in the House and Senate combined, right? Excluding, of course, DC and the territories, IIRC. That would explain why you get the Wyoming figures. Either way, to say that wyoming's vote is 3 times as important as NC's is stupid, because WY only gets 3 votes total anyway, so the effect is minimal



How about this, how about I give a scenario to explain why this is a bad idea? Here we go.
It's a close election as far as the EC goes. Put NC in the position of FL in 2000, where whichever candidate gets NC's EC votes will win the election. Now, suppose that 80% of North Carolinians voted for candidate A, but the nationwide vote was 51-49 in favor of candidate B. With this legislation, B wins, and the 80% of people who voted in NC were effectively ignored.



But, like others have said, a state splitting of votes by percentage would make more sense, though I'd be in favor of having each district appoint its elector, with the 2 extra state votes going to the victor of the state. makes sense to me.

5/17/2007 9:38:52 AM

Quote :

"How about this, how about I give a scenario to explain why this is a bad idea? Here we go. It's a close election as far as the EC goes. Put NC in the position of FL in 2000, where whichever candidate gets NC's EC votes will win the election. Now, suppose that 80% of North Carolinians voted for candidate A, but the nationwide vote was 51-49 in favor of candidate B. With this legislation, B wins, and the 80% of people who voted in NC were effectively ignored."

The President is not being elected the President of North Carolina. He's being elected the President of the United States. Why shouldn't the President of the United States be the person that receives the most support to be President? I don't care for Democrats that whine and moan about 2000 and how the election was stolen. However, Al Gore can say "more people thought I should be President than George W. Bush" and be correct.

Another good thing about this is that the chance of the race going to the House disappears. Does anyone really want to see that scenario? I do, but only for entertainment, not political, reasons. We might have a gun shootout in the Capitol between congressmen!

All this discussion though is a bit semantic really. If this ever happens to the Republicans, where they receive more votes but lose the election (say, 2008), they will push to get the laws change just as well as Democrats. Our opinions on disenfranchisement and what is the right and wrong way do not matter. The two parties will do what they want if it benefits them and will force changing it or not changing it down our throats.

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 10:17 AM. Reason : .]

5/17/2007 10:13:26 AM

they need to leave it alone.

5/17/2007 10:24:12 AM

Quote :

"The President is not being elected the President of North Carolina. He's being elected the President of the United States."

And yet, the President does represent NC in some fashion. As such, it only makes sense that the votes from NC represent what the people of NC actually want.

5/17/2007 10:24:31 AM

Most retarded thing ever.

Quote :

"He said the bill would draw more attention to North Carolina, which has a low profile in presidential elections"

So it's a good idea because it will draw attention to NC? Attention whore much...

5/17/2007 10:27:06 AM

This is the most absurd thing I have ever seen.

Dems don't like the way the electoral college works so they want to change it....fair enough

but the constitution allows for ways to change things. this is nothing more than an end-around the constitution. but coming from democrats it doesn't surprise me at all

5/17/2007 10:30:52 AM

the electoral college is a shitty system - as it is now - but this change would be worse unless it was instituted nationwide.

5/17/2007 10:32:42 AM

Quote :

"the electoral college is a shitty system - as it is now - but this change would be worse unless it was instituted nationwide."

The backers of the bill have said that it will only take effect when there are enough signatories that guarantee a majority of the electoral vote (i.e. 270). So North Carolina could pass it now if they wanted, but it won't mean anything until a number of states follow as well.

Quote :

"but the constitution allows for ways to change things. this is nothing more than an end-around the constitution. but coming from democrats it doesn't surprise me at all"

I doubt the Constitution will ever be changed again. It's too hard.

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 10:36 AM. Reason : .]

5/17/2007 10:35:52 AM

Quote :

"Is this bill like the California version which does a similar thing ONLY if every other state in the Union passes something similar? If it's not, then its a really stupid idea because it heavily dilutes the voice of the people of North Carolina in any presidental race."

that's not entirely accurate. in california at least, it would be instituted if enough states had passed this sort of law to get a majority of the electoral votes. you wouldn't even need half of the states to pass it if you got a big chunk of the larger states like calif. and new york.

5/17/2007 10:39:54 AM

Quote :

"And yet, the President does represent NC in some fashion. As such, it only makes sense that the votes from NC represent what the people of NC actually want."

And they will. Cause our vote will be part of the national vote. Your vote and my vote all count the same as they do now. It just goes into a larger pool of votes.

[Edited on May 17, 2007 at 10:42 AM. Reason : /]

5/17/2007 10:40:06 AM

Quote :

"1. North Carolina is not a small state. We are 10th by population."

Doesn't mean much. The top 9 states hold 50% of the population. It would take all 41 other states to offset them. Your NC vote would mean next to nothing.

Plus 6 of the top 9 are in the upper mid-east (NY, NJ, PA, OH, MI IL). A national vote will only shift power permanently to the most liberal region of the country.

5/17/2007 11:23:52 AM

this country is not "majority rules"

I don't know why "you people" don't get it

5/17/2007 11:25:08 AM

Quote :

"And they will. Cause our vote will be part of the national vote. Your vote and my vote all count the same as they do now. It just goes into a larger pool of votes."

Let me clarify: It only makes sense that NC's votes represent NCs voters, and ONLY NC's voters.

5/17/2007 11:42:29 AM

our local politicians have been doing some shady shit lately

5/17/2007 11:47:53 AM

I thought about posting this the other day while the debate was going on in session...

Some of the Democrats were kinda opposed to it along with the Republicans but they voted in favor anyway...its a party thing

5/17/2007 11:54:33 AM