McConnell warns of popular vote 'catastrophic outcome'

McConnell warns of popular vote 'catastrophic outcome'

Addressing what he called “the most important issue in America that nobody is talking about,” Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell warned Wednesday that the National Popular Vote movement is “getting dangerously close to achieving their goal of eliminating the Electoral College without actually amending the Constitution -- without anybody even noticing, unfortunately, what they’re up to.”

The National Popular Vote is a compact among state legislatures under which they pledge that they’ll award their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most popular votes nationwide, even if that candidate was not the majority choice of their state’s voters.

So far, California, seven other states, and the District of Columbia (all of which have large Democratic majorities) have passed legislation taking the National Popular Vote pledge. Those states and D.C. account for 132 electoral votes. The compact says it is to take effect when states with a total of at least 270 electoral votes have agreed to it.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution gives each state legislature the power to decide how its state’s presidential electors are selected. All but two states (Nebraska and Maine) use a winner-take-all system in which the person who gets the most popular votes in that state wins all of its electoral votes.

In a speech at the conservative Washington think tank the Heritage Foundation, McConnell said a national popular vote tally might require recounts in all 50 states, if the margin of victory were small. “Imagine the following scenario: you’ve got a national election within 100,000 votes. That happened in 1968,” McConnell said.

Yes it would be a terrible thing for the people to get the person they vote for to get into office. We should have ditched the Electoral College a long time ago.

reply to post by buster2010


So if I vote for Paul in Utah, but Obama got more votes in California, my vote wouldn't count?
Seems rather draconian to me.

Conversely, if I voted for Romney (in Utah) and someone voted for Obama in California, but the turnout was bigger in Utah, the Obama votes would not count?

People look at this as if it will only benefit the DNC, but if you looked at it as benefitting any political party over another, therm you might have people rethinking this.

Just imagine Bush manipulating the electoral college instead of Obama.

"The National Popular Vote is a compact among state legislatures under which they pledge that they’ll award their electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most popular votes nationwide, even if that candidate was not the majority choice of their state’s voters."

Ok, I'm all for scrapping the electoral college system, and going to a popular vote...but this movement isn't trying to accomplish that...it's trying to get states to agree to give their electoral votes to whoever wins the popular vote. Basically, not every state would have to agree to this, which would cause some state's voters to have their vote count less than it already does.

Now if every state agreed, it would work...but the way they are going about this should throw up some major red flags.

What would the point of the electoral college be? If candidate A got more votes then candidate B, then the electoral college gives all points to candidate A since they won the popular vote.

Popular vote is fine with me, sounds good!

Unless I'm missing something?

reply to post by Ghost375
That's what I got out of it.

States with larger populations would be determining the vote for states with smaller populations.

reply to post by buster2010


i think there are too many people who are a part of our 'trusted' government who have high interest in more efficient means of corrupting and manipulating the presidential voting system to more easily assure their corrupt candidate become 'legally voted into office' ( and thus keep the people calm ).

i think it is high time america moved towards democracy more. when the constitution was written, it made sense to have communities vote for their candidate based on that person's intelligence and views. the commoners weren't as educated and had time consuming jobs. combine that with communication delays that not having internet and phones caused, it was a good system for the time.

however, nowadays the common people are much more educated, and voting electronically removes the communications lag that made us need a republic form of government.

having a house and senate decide more trivial things is beneficial, but big votes should go directly to the people. it would reduce corruption because you simply couldn't buy out 1/2 of america as easily as 60 senators.

is this the way i want it to be done? no. not at all.

If you do away with the electoral college, then elections might as well be held in L.A. or in New York.

Forget the midwest.
Just let the big cities decide for the rest of us.

Can anyone really imagine that? An election campaign based on what "free stuff" folks in the cities get, any lure to drive them to the booths.

Larger populations also tend to vote one party over another. Gee, imagine that!

I just wish these jack-wagons would take the gloves off, and JUST TELL ME WHO TO VOTE FOR because this game-playing manipulation is all bull-poop! Why try sneaking around? Just come out and say, "We want all the power, FOREVER!!! (muah-hahahahahaha)"

Everytime I see stuff like this, it makes me re-read the Constitution, The Bill of Rights, and the 2nd Ammendment.

reply to post by beezzer

perhaps, but i would only be comfortable with an electoral college if the members are removed.

if "x" candidate wins, then they get ALL the points.

If I might observe something very relevant here. Popular vote is Democracy and by less generous terms, is known as Mob rule. The Electoral College is the tool of a Representative Republic which is what America was built to be way back in our past by some pretty intelligent guys.

If modern America were to switch to strictly a popular vote system on who gets elected, we've lost whatever made America special and unique, and I think it really is that profound and important an issue. The top 15-20 Metropolitan areas combined in numbers could easily set terms for who leads the United States, if the political parties simply get a majority in those few places to 1. Vote and 2. Vote for them.

Missouri deals with this crap as a way of life. By happenstance of borders and history we have a large state with strong and deep conservative values which also happens to have 2 of the aforementioned metropolitan areas. Everything outside of St Louis and the Kansas City metro areas are regularly voted down and defeated on measures which run strongly enough against people in those two comparatively small areas. No biggy and it's something we, in rural Missouri, have learned ways to deal with inside the system to the best of our ability.

If we REALLY didn't like it we can move ti another state with a better balance of population across the rest of the..majority...of the state. Tell me though....what happens if the whole country becomes Missouri in the handful of *BIG* population centers dictating things like the Presidency to all the states who don't rate for having a large enough population?

That is why we don't do the popular vote here...and why we never can if we are to keep America, America.

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by beezzer

 

perhaps, but i would only be comfortable with an electoral college if the members are removed.

if "x" candidate wins, then they get ALL the points.

The electoral college provides an equality for all socio-economic demographics.

Without the electoral college, you would have inequality. It'd be an unfair balance within the strata of the various demographics.

All voices should be heard.

But none should be louder than the rest.

This is an extremely bad idea.

The candidate who wins the national popularity vote is given the electoral votes of your state no matter if that candidate won the popular vote in your state. Bad, Bad Idea.

States with low population counts will be sidelined with out a voice.

Large population states will be targeted by campaigns, and will be promised everything under the sun just to win the popular vote there. Bad, Bad idea.

This is a ripe field to produce election fraud on a scale never before witnessed.

I am shocked that people could even conceive this as being democracy, it is tyranny run a muck.
The Electoral College is the only fair way to determine the President of the UNITED States. Each State Legislature chooses its own method of the way the College is selected and applied. We all have witnessed what has become of the US Senate when the selection of senators became a popularity race. Another bad judgment call is not what is needed at this time in our history.

So far everyone who has responded to this post either A) didnt read the entire post B) does not understand how the electoral system currently works or C) lacks critical thinking. In order to win, the candidate must recieve the majority of the electoral votes. The minimium number to have the majority is 270. The proposal doesn't take effect until enough states agree to add up to 270. This makes it a nation wide popular vote. It doesn't matter if one state votes different than your state, it wont negate your state. This would make every single persons vote actually count. Currently if your state is extremely favors one party and you vote for the opposing party, your vote doesnt really matter. This completely gets rid of the electoral college. The results will be like 65,182,692 v. 57,212,032. (The person w/ 65 mil wins btw)

Comeon ATS..

reply to post by cbvh27
So you're in favour of demographics being unequally represented.

Got it.

One strata should have a louder voice than another.

Got it.

One aspect of a population should be heard while another is told to shut the # up!

Got it.

Equality is a bad thing to you.

Got it.

No i was just tried of people being/still being dense. I was only explaining what it ment. Our states amount of electoral votes are already based on population. I didn't even say it was the right solution, simply trying to help others understand what was being proposed... but not all can be helped

Originally posted by cbvh27
No i was just tried of people being/still being dense. I was only explaining what it ment. Our states amount of electoral votes are already based on population. I didn't even say it was the right solution, simply trying to help others understand what was being proposed... but not all can be helped

Who's being dense?

The proponents of this want an unfair advantage towards their demographic.

Simple.

It'd be the same if I were to advance an idea that only vets who were honerably discharged can vote.

I must admit, I did take a 3 hour law school final today. Maybe I fried my brain a little bit and am not able to spot this disadvantage to certain demographics. In fact it seems like it equally represents every demographic/person who votes. The key is it doesnt go into effect until 270 electoral votes of states are signed on. Bah, I better go to sleep before I start seeing other things the exact opposite of what they actually are.

Originally posted by cbvh27
So far everyone who has responded to this post either A) didnt read the entire post B) does not understand how the electoral system currently works or C) lacks critical thinking.

Okay..... So we didn't read, can't read and comprehend, or did and can, but are just too dumb to get it? Ouch... That sure is a strong way to approach your fellow ATS members.

If I may note, this IS ATS. I think most of us did see what this specifically addressed. On the other hand, slippery slope is becoming a common thing to see issues turn into and watch happen. The entire issue of TRUE popular vote has been a repeated topic of conversation and political ideas since the rather interesting election of 2000 in recent terms, at least.

Again.. ATS being ATS, threads do tend to meander a bit around related areas...It's part of what gives ATS it's charm, in my humble opinion on things and gives even odd thread topics attention. You never know where things may lead around here.... Yikes.. It wouldn't necessarily indicate people didn't read things...

reply to post by Wrabbit2000
I just read the small words.

Big ones make me askaird.

Sorry, I went a lil far.
Last try for those who still dont understand. Currently in MO, every time i vote for Ron Paul my vote is essentially worthless.
With the new system my vote would be worth (you guessed it!) 1 vote.
Others earlier were right, this is democracy not a republic.
I actually favor a republic, because it's easy to convience 51% of a population of something stupid.
But our current electoral college works more like a democracy already, if you going to go w/ democracy do it the right way at least. (electoral college should allow your rep. to give the vote to someone the people didn't choose. b/c the people chose the rep. and he represents them and now has additonal knowledge.) Were so corrupt now though that that even sounds horrible.

P.S. I wasn't trying to say everyone couldn't critically think. Was just listing the 3 possiblities. I really expected most to fall into A) just didn't read/notice that part of it. Others later proved to be C) though