Upgrade your browser!

Skip to Content

End the Electoral College - John Koza

Stanford University computer scientist John Koza explains the National Popular Vote Bill, a plan that, if enacted, would effectively circumvent the role of the Electoral College in determining the President of the United States. ----- The Electoral College was developed by our founding fathers and enshrined in the Constitution as a system of checks and balances to ensure a fair outcome in the choosing of our presidents. However, the highly publicized 2000 presidential election, in which Al Gore may have won the popular vote but lost the contest to George W. Bush, galvanized those who wish to see the Electoral College scrapped in favor of a national popular vote.

  • Views: 318
  • All Ages
  • All Ages

Related Media

  • Video:NETCHIX
  • NETCHIX
  • Rent as many chix as you want, whenever you want, and n. . .
  • Votes 4.09/5 - Views 394 - Comments 1

View All



Trouble playing the media? Click here to manually download it.

Rate This Video:
Rate it 0.5 Rate it 1.0 Rate it 1.5 Rate it 2.0 Rate it 2.5 Rate it 3.0 Rate it 3.5 Rate it 4.0 Rate it 4.5 Rate it 5.0

4.27 out of 5 based on 62 votes

Rating Results:
Earn XP by sharing this video!
learn more

Video URL:

Embedded Link:

Send This Video To A Cell Phone! Digg

6 Comments

Current View: 15 / Show all Comments

choreboy : LVL 25: VP 3.4: said:

choreboy

1 votes NegativePositive

64 days 22 hours ago...

i like how the "important" stuff starts showing up when it`s too late

CombatGod : LVL 41: VP 4.9: said:

CombatGod

1 votes NegativePositive

64 days 18 hours ago...

If you ask me the entire presidential and political official election system needs to be redone.

Candidates should be chosen based on 3 criteria, tests for intelligence, experience and general popularity. All counting equally and the candidate with the highest score wins.

I`m tired of dipshits getting in, it took us 8 years to get the last one out... unacceptable...

Valaur : LVL 33: VP 4.2: said:

Valaur

1 votes NegativePositive

64 days 4 hours ago...

Tests aren`t enough. On an episode of Boston Legal this season a 17 year old girl forged her documents so she could vote in the primary. Her argument involves the fact that even though she cant vote, she can still be prosecuted as an adult, and that the handicapped, the drug addicts, the seniors, etc etc can all vote.
Prosecution asks her if she understands the complexities of immigration, foreign policy, middle east balance, economic recession, etc etc. Her reply is simple: For the most part yes, but do you think the average american knows any of those? She`s old enough to have an abortion, to pay for taxes (which is why the States is even in existence), and to be a parent. She believes that most people vote because of a D or an R next to the candidates name.
Also, last year 186 billion dollars were spent by the american youth. And filed tax returns. And can`t vote.
My point: get rid of the age limit. Put in an intelligence requirement like CombatGod suggests. Place barriers for those that are not informed and ... vote me down for saying it, but those that vote because of Religion should be prevented from voting.
What I`m suggesting doesn`t imply socialism or communism. Just an intelligent voting system. Prevent the odd 10 million dumbasses from fucking up an election.

mvymvy : LVL 1: VP 1: said:

mvymvy

1 votes NegativePositive

56 days 8 hours ago...

What the U.S. Constitution says is "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ." The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."

Neither of the two most important features of the current system of electing the President (namely, that the voters may vote and the winner-take-all rule) are in the U.S. Constitution. Neither was the choice of the Founders when they went back to their states to organize the nation`s first presidential election.

In 1789, in the nation`s first election, the people had no vote for President in most states, it was necessary to own a substantial amount of property in order to vote, and only 3 states used the winner-take-all rule (awarding all of a state`s electoral vote to the candidate who gets the most votes in the state). Since then, as a result of changes in state laws, the people have the right to vote for presidential electors in 100% of the states, there are no property requirements for voting in any state, and the winner-take-all rule is used by 48 of the 50 states.

The "normal process" of effecting change in the method of electing the President is specified the U.S. Constitution, namely action by the state legislatures. This is how the current system was created, and this is the built-in method that the Constitution provides for making changes.

mvymvy : LVL 1: VP 1: said:

mvymvy

1 votes NegativePositive

56 days 8 hours ago...

Some statistics . . .

The 2000 presidential election was an artificial crisis created because of Bush’s lead of 537 popular votes in Florida. Gore’s nationwide lead was 537,179 popular votes (1,000 times larger).

In 2004, President George W. Bush was ahead by about 3,500,000 popular votes nationwide on election night; however, the outcome of the election remained in doubt until Wednesday morning because it was not clear which candidate was going to win Ohio’s 20 electoral votes. In the end, Bush received 118,785 more popular votes than Kerry in Ohio, thus winning all of the state’s 20 electoral votes and ensuring his reelection. However, if 59,393 voters in Ohio had switched in 2004, Kerry would have ended up with 272 electoral votes (two more than the 270 required to be elected to the Presidency). This would have nullified Bush’s lead of 3,500,000 popular votes nationwide.

In 1976, Jimmy Carter led Gerald Ford by 1,682,970 votes nationwide; however, a shift of 3,687 votes in Hawaii and 5,559 votes in Ohio would have elected Ford.

Samuel Tilden’s 3% lead in 1876 was a solid victory in terms of the national popular vote (equal to Bush’s solid percentage lead in the 2004 election). However, an artificial crisis was created because of the razor-thin margins of 889 votes in South Carolina, 922 in Florida, and 4,807 in Louisiana.

mvymvy : LVL 1: VP 1: said:

mvymvy

1 votes NegativePositive

56 days 8 hours ago...

To make every vote in every state politically relevant and equal in presidential elections, support the National Popular Vote bill.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill is currently endorsed by 1,181 state legislators — 439 sponsors (in 47 states) and an additional 742 legislators who have cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 21 legislative chambers (one house in CO, AR, ME, NC, and WA, and two houses in MD, IL, HI, CA, MA, NJ, RI, and VT). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.

see http://www.NationalPopularVote.com

Post a Comment:

Avatar


The Spikedhumor Drawing!Moderators Contest
Prize
Entry Dates: 11/4/2008-12/15/2008