Rather than embracing the NPV as a way to solidify the Constitution's guarantee of "one man, one vote," McConnell lambasted the plan, calling it a "genuine threat to our country." Though McConnell admitted that the notion of a popular presidential vote where the candidate who receives the most votes wins is "appealing," he called the idea "absurd and dangerous."

To be fair, if we institued this years ago Gore would have been President and we may never have went into Iraq. Our surplus money would have been in some occult-fashioned "lock-box" and our American values diminished to that of a militant gay communist, socialist, atheist, Islamic activists

THAT man's one vote is a threat to our country.

The Onion is prophetic: I can't stand to listen to the guy, so I ask... does he give a reason why it's a genuine threat? Or just more vague fearmongering from Mitch McTurtle?


He doesn't give a reason in the linked article, which sucks - they have a video clip, but all he says is some vague statement about how it's this huge threat. Nothing else. I wish I had more information. There's certainly an academic debate to be had about the merits of the popular vote versus electoral college, but methinks Mitch isn't thinking about it in those terms.

The Onion is prophetic: I can't stand to listen to the guy, so I ask... does he give a reason why it's a genuine threat? Or just more vague fearmongering from Mitch McTurtle?

Well, from Mitch's POV, it's a genuine threat to the GOP as the current system skews the weight of the electoral college towards GOP strongholds (the less populated West). For California's 54 electoral votes, Wyoming gets 3. California has about 37,000,000 people; Wyoming has 544,000. That's .000001 of an EV per person in CA and .000006 per person in Wyoming. Your vote for president counts more in WY than it does in CA.

Further, you don't need all of California's voters to get those 54 votes; you need half +1. It's much easier to get 272,001 voters in WY (let's assume everyone in these states voted) than it is to get 18,500,001 in CA. Moreover, it doesn't matter if you get 18,500,001 or 18,500,002, you still win either way and there is no utility for more than the bare minimum of votes.

If you let it happen by popular vote, large metropolises would dominate, there would be no cap on any given area's voting power, and such places tend to vote Democratic.

So, I can see how he would be worried.

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: The Onion is prophetic: I can't stand to listen to the guy, so I ask... does he give a reason why it's a genuine threat? Or just more vague fearmongering from Mitch McTurtle?

Well, from Mitch's POV, it's a genuine threat to the GOP as the current system skews the weight of the electoral college towards GOP strongholds (the less populated West). For California's 54 electoral votes, Wyoming gets 3. California has about 37,000,000 people; Wyoming has 544,000. That's .000001 of an EV per person in CA and .000006 per person in Wyoming. Your vote for president counts more in WY than it does in CA.

Further, you don't need all of California's voters to get those 54 votes; you need half +1. It's much easier to get 272,001 voters in WY (let's assume everyone in these states voted) than it is to get 18,500,001 in CA. Moreover, it doesn't matter if you get 18,500,001 or 18,500,002, you still win either way and there is no utility for more than the bare minimum of votes.

If you let it happen by popular vote, large metropolises would dominate, there would be no cap on any given area's voting power, and such places tend to vote Democratic.

So, I can see how he would be worried.

It seems like the opposite happened - the system worked in FAVOR of the Republicans with Bush/Gore, right? (Sorry, Australian, not American - your system is confusing).

Oh wait, I see, nevermind - it DOES work in the Republicans' favor and that's why he's against the popular vote. Now I'm on the trolley.

The man is a farking traitor to his country. Bottom line.

Diogenes: Funny. I often say the same of him.

I'd call him a turd-burglar, but that would be unfair to burglars. And turds.

might as well throw out the 2 senators per state idea while we're at it

FireBreathingLiberal: THAT man's one vote is a threat to our country.
[www.stephenvoss.com image 640x459]

Someone please post a picture of the turtle from The Never Ending Story.

If the majority of people in Iran voted for one president, but another man won because of their "electoral brigade," which candidate would the U.S. recognize as the true leader of the people?

FireBreathingLiberal: THAT man's one vote is a threat to our country.

Morla, the Ancient One...?

jbc: AlinaJoan: To be fair, if we institued this years ago Gore would have been President and we may never have went into Iraq.

On the other hand, instead of the recounts in just one corrupt state, we would have had recounts everywhere and a much greater chance of Wisconsin GOP-style voter fraud. Not enough votes to carry North Carolina, Newt? Just have your cronies in Georgia 'find' some more ballots.

This is one of the rare times Mitch shows signs of being capable of rational thought.

Yes, because there are no ways to eliminate the type of fraud that took place in Wisconsin like having certifying officials from all parties of that district sign off of the results instead of someone appointed to that position by a politician.

Now I am sure there is a flaw in that plan to, but you find it and fix it. This isn't rocket science people, it is farking counting to 300 million.

GhostFish: FireBreathingLiberal: THAT man's one vote is a threat to our country.

Morla, the Ancient One...?

[i.imgur.com image 400x303]

LMFAO. It's almost like you were reading my mind.

dlp211: Now I am sure there is a flaw in that plan to, but you find it and fix it. This isn't rocket science people, it is farking counting to 300 million.

if 300,000,000 votes are cast, we got ourselves some election fraud

I could see how that might bother him, considering President Obama received more votes than any candidate in history.

The idea of an electoral college isn't a terrible one, it's just that the current incarnation is terribly flawed.
Ideally, every state would do what Nebraska and Maine; that is award 2 votes for winning the state popular vote, then the remainder per congressional district. Even this, is flawed, however, due to gerrymandering.

What's the solution? Well, unless you can somehow fix the gerrymandering issue, there isn't really a good one.
Until internet saturation and use is 100%, direct popular vote is a bad idea.

skullkrusher: dlp211: Now I am sure there is a flaw in that plan to, but you find it and fix it. This isn't rocket science people, it is farking counting to 300 million.

if 300,000,000 votes are cast, we got ourselves some election fraud

hahaha. Good point. So it would be something more like what? 240 million potential voters, I don't really know and I am being lazy.

ramblinwreck: FireBreathingLiberal: THAT man's one vote is a threat to our country.
[www.stephenvoss.com image 640x459]

Someone please post a picture of the turtle from The Never Ending Story.

"Not that it matters..."

I hate to agree, even a little bit, with that asshole Mitch McConnell, but on this one he's at least correct in being opposed, if not in the hysteria. The President is elected by the states, not the people. It's a subtle but important thing that keeps California and New York from choosing every President.

Cyclometh: I hate to agree, even a little bit, with that asshole Mitch McConnell, but on this one he's at least correct in being opposed, if not in the hysteria. The President is elected by the states, not the people. It's a subtle but important thing that keeps California and New York from choosing every President.

Yes, because we have never changed anything like that ever. I mean Senators are still elected by the State Legislatures as well right?

Cyclometh: I hate to agree, even a little bit, with that asshole Mitch McConnell, but on this one he's at least correct in being opposed, if not in the hysteria. The President is elected by the states, not the people. It's a subtle but important thing that keeps California and New York from choosing every President.

Actually, we had about 4 or 5 Republicans choose the President 11 years ago...

I'm still not sure why the Electoral College is such a good idea, or for that matter why we keep up this joke that we have 50 countries called states.

dlp211: skullkrusher: dlp211: Now I am sure there is a flaw in that plan to, but you find it and fix it. This isn't rocket science people, it is farking counting to 300 million.

if 300,000,000 votes are cast, we got ourselves some election fraud

hahaha. Good point. So it would be something more like what? 240 million potential voters, I don't really know and I am being lazy.

hehe that sounds about right

whidbey: I'm still not sure why the Electoral College is such a good idea, or for that matter why we keep up this joke that we have 50 countries called states.

That you don't understand the latter is why you don't understand the former.

Jackson Herring: [www.chelydra.org image 561x387]

you got an ugly dick man. Keep that shiat on twitter, Tony.

mak3_7up_y0urs:
I could see how that might bother him, considering President Obama received more votes than any candidate in history.

...because we have more Americans than at any time in history.

You might remember that George Bush was the second-most-popular President in history (and third!), according to total number of votes cast.

On the other hand, if you look at percentages of votes (the more important measure in an election), Richard M. Nixon was immensely more popular than Obama - he got almost 61% of the vote in his SECOND run at office - as opposed to Obama's 53%.

For that matter, in the last century or so, Obama didn't even make the top ten in vote percentages...