Quantcast

Jump to content


Photo

New York joins National Popular Vote Interstate Compact


  • Please log in to reply
19 replies to this topic

#1 Bone

Bone
  • no

  • 3638 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 April 2014 - 09:45 AM

ALBANY - New York has joined the campaign to effectively end the Electoral College’s role in determining winners of presidential elections.

 

Under the National Popular Vote Compact, which Gov. Cuomo signed off on Tuesday, the state has agreed to award its electoral college votes to whichever presidential candidate wins the national popular vote.

 

Currently New York’s electoral colleges votes go to the winner of the state’s popular vote.

 

The Senate and Assembly approved the legislation last month.

 

The compact only takes effect once enough states have signed on to give it the required 270 electoral college votes. With New York’s participation, the movement has 165 votes.

 

"With the passage of this legislation, New York is taking a bold step to fundamentally increase the strength and fairness of our nation's presidential elections," Cuomo said.


Read more: http://www.nydailyne...6#ixzz2zjTPZTPz

 

 

 

So this happened last week. More about the NPVIC. 

 

Discuss! Does anyone want to attempt to defend the electoral college?  :devil: 



#2 Emily

Emily
  • Wonder Woman


  • 6508 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 April 2014 - 02:42 PM

Most of our population is uneducated about what is happening in politics anyway. Most people don't even know about their party's platform. I doubt it would make anything much better. Not that I agree with the electoral college way of doing it either.

 

Our constitution and our government are flawed by design. Our founders feared tyranny so they made everything extremely difficult :p



#3 luvsmyncis

luvsmyncis
  • I have no friends.

  • 6724 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 April 2014 - 02:47 PM

Most of our population is uneducated about what is happening in politics anyway. Most people don't even know about their party's platform. I doubt it would make anything much better. Not that I agree with the electoral college way of doing it either.

 

Well, it would make me feel like my vote actually meant something. I always vote straight socialism in a very capitalist area.



#4 Emily

Emily
  • Wonder Woman


  • 6508 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 April 2014 - 02:49 PM

Well, it would make me feel like my vote actually meant something. I always vote straight socialism in a very capitalist area.

 

Yeah, that's a good point. I know a lot of people who don't vote because they feel like it doesn't actually count for anything.



#5 luvsmyncis

luvsmyncis
  • I have no friends.

  • 6724 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 April 2014 - 02:51 PM

Yeah, that's a good point. I know a lot of people who don't vote because they feel like it doesn't actually count for anything.

 

Which is probably what I would do if I didn't have a 91 year old man shouting at me every election cycle to GO AND VOTE because he was in THREE WARS and there are places in the world where people AREN'T ALLOWED to vote for their leaders and... OKAY GRANDPA I'M GOING I'M GOING.



#6 Florg

Florg
  • 711 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 April 2014 - 02:51 PM

The Electoral College should be abolished, it's ridiculous.

 

It gives far more power to the smaller states, it essentially makes some people's votes more valuable than other people's votes.

Popular Vote should decide a president.

 


Here is a video that greatly explains why it's ridiculous and should be abolished.

It shows how someone can only get 22% of the popular vote but still WIN the Presidency.
Meaning 78% of the entire country can vote AGAINST you but you still win.

What the fuck?


Edited by Florg, 23 April 2014 - 02:55 PM.


#7 Tetiel

Tetiel
  • 11533 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 April 2014 - 02:58 PM

Yeah, that's a good point. I know a lot of people who don't vote because they feel like it doesn't actually count for anything.

Yup which is why I don't bother to vote on some things. I live in Washington State. We're going to be democrat no matter what, so what point is there in  another democrat vote? And in local elections, I live in an extremely republican area where the vote is between a republican and another republican so I vote for the one that didn't draft a bill to support business discrimination against homosexuals. I also always vote for school funding because I live in a community where there's a bunch of old bastards here that claim in their day, they didn't need more than one electrical socket in a classroom and an abacus was a perfectly acceptable means of calculation. But why the hell would I waste my time in a national election?



#8 Florg

Florg
  • 711 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 April 2014 - 03:01 PM

so what point is there in  another democrat vote?

 

To show support?

The more it seems that Democrats are losing support, the more credence to give to the lunatic party who thinks religion should rule the country with an iron fist.

You not voting can greatly impact others not voting, other supporting the party, donations and campaign contributions.
If everyone thought "Well I live in a Republican state, no point in voting since I'm a democrat" or "I live in a democrat state that always votes for the democrat. No point in voting since I vote democrat" the n things would likely change quite drastically.

 

The entire point of voting isn't solely to vote just so the candidate you support will win. It's to show everyone who has the most support, by which demographics, location, etc.
It's more than just win or lose.



#9 Tetiel

Tetiel
  • 11533 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 April 2014 - 03:16 PM

To show support?

The more it seems that Democrats are losing support, the more credence to give to the lunatic party who thinks religion should rule the country with an iron fist.

You not voting can greatly impact others not voting, other supporting the party, donations and campaign contributions.
If everyone thought "Well I live in a Republican state, no point in voting since I'm a democrat" or "I live in a democrat state that always votes for the democrat. No point in voting since I vote democrat" the n things would likely change quite drastically.

 

The entire point of voting isn't solely to vote just so the candidate you support will win. It's to show everyone who has the most support, by which demographics, location, etc.
It's more than just win or lose.

My point is, the system creates those feelings and incredibly easily. I'm not trying to say that mindset is correct, but it's incredibly easy to fall into even with someone who actively looks into politics such as myself.



#10 Florg

Florg
  • 711 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 April 2014 - 03:56 PM

My point is, the system creates those feelings and incredibly easily. I'm not trying to say that mindset is correct, but it's incredibly easy to fall into even with someone who actively looks into politics such as myself.

 

Oh, I agree. It creates a lot of apathy and I can't say I blame people.

 

But I think what baffles me most is the fact that people are constantly voting against their own self interests because of guns or jesus or some other stupid shit.

All the while bitching about corrupt politicians while they're the ones who voted them into office in the first place.

 

But if some regular joe from the streets wanted to run (because you know everyone is tired of establishment politicians) there would be no way in hell they could win.
It's sad



#11 Bone

Bone
  • no

  • 3638 posts


Users Awards

Posted 23 April 2014 - 04:33 PM

Most of our population is uneducated about what is happening in politics anyway. Most people don't even know about their party's platform. I doubt it would make anything much better. Not that I agree with the electoral college way of doing it either.

 

Our constitution and our government are flawed by design. Our founders feared tyranny so they made everything extremely difficult :p

 

NPV would encourage candidates to campaign outside of Ohio and Florida, so more people would be actively engaged in the political process. Voter education isn't an easy task, but making it in candidates' best interests to convince more than just 50% of the voters in each state would help.

 

Turnout would likely improve in large, highly partisan states like New York, Texas, and California. Every voter, regardless of state residency, would have equal influence in the election of the President, and no votes (for a Republican or Democrat, at least) would be "wasted".



#12 luvsmyncis

luvsmyncis
  • I have no friends.

  • 6724 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 April 2014 - 07:28 AM

Turnout would likely improve in large, highly partisan states like New York, Texas, and California. Every voter, regardless of state residency, would have equal influence in the election of the President, and no votes (for a Republican or Democrat, at least) would be "wasted".


The only downside is there are a lot of stupid ass people.

#13 Bone

Bone
  • no

  • 3638 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 April 2014 - 07:42 AM

The only downside is there are a lot of stupid ass people.

 

I'd rather have a lot of stupid Californians decide an election than a few stupid Ohioans (people who are literally made out of trash) or a few Floridians (old people).



#14 redlion

redlion
  • I don't exist!

  • 12072 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 April 2014 - 10:47 AM

a few stupid Ohioans (people who are literally made out of trash)

You are going to have to explain that one.

National popular vote is a great idea. Unfortunately, the smallest states will never sign on (and thus NPV will never happen) because then they'll be treated as they should be: as small, insignificant places unworthy of a campaign stop.

The electoral college helps moneyed interests, small states, and the two major parties. Nothing in there about helping democracy or the citizenry.

#15 KaibaSama

KaibaSama
  • Weeaboo


  • 5640 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 April 2014 - 10:55 AM

I live in Pennsylvania, which is a swing state, so voting for me is important because the state could go either way and impact my life in ways I don't want, like the religious fanatics who want to run America. With the national popular vote, I'd say it's a bit odd of an idea for me because people don't vote. If people don't vote, then the national popular vote can get swung one way instead of the other. (not by a huge margin, a small one but still).

 

I don't believe that PA will do this, because we're not that large of a state (we're not the tinniest but we're not that large either), plus we're a swing state. If a swing state went by national popular vote, we wouldn't really be that useful/important at all.

Basically, I agree with redlion. (if the above made any sense at all).


Edited by Satsuki, 24 April 2014 - 10:55 AM.


#16 Emily

Emily
  • Wonder Woman


  • 6508 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 April 2014 - 11:08 AM

I'd rather have a lot of stupid Californians decide an election than a few stupid Ohioans (people who are literally made out of trash) or a few Floridians (old people).


I'm a Floridian. I resent that! *hobbles away on cane*

#17 Bone

Bone
  • no

  • 3638 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 April 2014 - 12:07 PM

You are going to have to explain that one.

National popular vote is a great idea. Unfortunately, the smallest states will never sign on (and thus NPV will never happen) because then they'll be treated as they should be: as small, insignificant places unworthy of a campaign stop.

The electoral college helps moneyed interests, small states, and the two major parties. Nothing in there about helping democracy or the citizenry.

 

A joke. Mostly. I just really don't like Ohio. :p

 

Vermont, Rhode Island, and Hawaii have signed on. In reality, so far the split in adoption has been more along partisan lines. But New York's bill was passed with bipartisan support and NPV is gaining traction in Oklahoma and other predominantly Republican states, so things are looking up.

 

I live in Pennsylvania, which is a swing state, so voting for me is important because the state could go either way and impact my life in ways I don't want, like the religious fanatics who want to run America. With the national popular vote, I'd say it's a bit odd of an idea for me because people don't vote. If people don't vote, then the national popular vote can get swung one way instead of the other. (not by a huge margin, a small one but still).

 

I don't believe that PA will do this, because we're not that large of a state (we're not the tinniest but we're not that large either), plus we're a swing state. If a swing state went by national popular vote, we wouldn't really be that useful/important at all.

Basically, I agree with redlion. (if the above made any sense at all).

 

...wut.

 

Turnout doesn't really have anything to do with the direct election of the President. NPV would actually reduce the likelihood of close races. Think of Florida in 2000 -- while the vote difference between Bush and Gore was in the thousands, the difference between the two candidates nationwide was about 500,000 votes.

 

PA has two important metro areas that any candidate would be foolish to ignore. In regards to the argument that rural/low population density areas would be ignored, the truth is that most of them are already ignored. The only predominantly rural state that has any importance (in terms of campaign visits, attention, promises, etc) is Iowa (and Ohio, if you consider it a rural state). Simply because it's a swing state. The rest are solidly Republican enough that candidates can safely ignore them in their campaigns.



#18 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 April 2014 - 02:25 PM

...looks like a really weird spambot :p

#19 Bone

Bone
  • no

  • 3638 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 April 2014 - 03:47 PM

...looks like a really weird spambot :p

 

I have never seen at comments section of an article about NPV without this spambot. Gotta admire the dedication. 



#20 Sweeney

Sweeney
  • 1230 posts


Users Awards

Posted 24 April 2014 - 03:48 PM

That is truly remarkable O_o


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users