New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

The popular vote isn't a thing

kaz

Small l libertarian
Iowa voters are more important in primaries, nj never selects a nominee. So get your facts straight before you babble
Winston: The Constitution sucks, Iowa is more important than NJ and it shouldn't be, the founders never designed a system to work that way

kaz: The founders who wrote the Constitution? Actually, Iowa versus New Jersey is the primaries, which is controlled by the parties, not the Constitution

Winston: The Constitution doesn't control the primaries kaz! Sheesh

kaz: That's what I just said. So how does the Constitution make Iowa more important than NJ?

Winston: "Iowa voters are more important in primaries, nj never selects a nominee. So get your facts straight before you babble"

Yeah ...
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
Winston: The Constitution sucks, Iowa is more important than NJ and it shouldn't be, the founders never designed a system to work that way

kaz: The founders who wrote the Constitution? Actually, Iowa versus New Jersey is the primaries, which is controlled by the parties, not the Constitution

Winston: The Constitution doesn't control the primaries kaz! Sheesh

kaz: That's what I just said. So how does the Constitution make Iowa more important than NJ?

Winston: "Iowa voters are more important in primaries, nj never selects a nominee. So get your facts straight before you babble"

Yeah ...
I never mentioned the constitution.

I said the primaries are unfair
 

JuliefromOhio

President
Supporting Member
The states that decided this election were Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania. The campaigns are run in battleground states. Not the small states. The Electoral College creates "one party states"....republicans in California or New York and democrats in Texas don't count in presidential elections...so the EC discourages turnout.

We are a republic because we elect representatives to the House to vote on legislation instead of having elections to do it. The small states are protected by their senators...they get the same representation in the Senate as every other state...See how that works?

Meanwhile, the president is not the president of individual states. He is the president of the nation. That is why the NATIONAL POPULAR VOTE should and will elect him.
77,000 votes spread over WI MI and PA gave Trump the electoral win. Trump can't count on those 77,000 voters to be with him in 2020.
 

kaz

Small l libertarian
I never mentioned the constitution.

I said the primaries are unfair
OK, fair enough. But when you said how our country was "designed," that sounded like the Constitution to me. The rest then sounds to me like it was saying the Constitution isn't being followed. I'll admit you didn't explicitly say that, but you have to admit why I took it that way

Original quote:

Our country was not designed that any state should have more importance then any other, which means that the people in that are also of more importance. I want to vote in primaries, but my vote never counts because the noms are always already chosen by the time nj votes. Fair is fair right is right and wrong is wrong, nothing changes when you step over a state line.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
OK, but change in this case requires an actual amendment to the Constitution -- one that passes in 2/3 of the states. Which means it won't happen because there's no way that you can put together a coalition of states large enough for ratification -- you're asking too much of middle America to give up its influence on presidential elections. No one will campaign for Missouri's 4 million votes when there are 6 million available in NYC alone.
Tho popular vote compact needs a few more states to add up to 270 electors. In case you hadn't noticed, no campaign events happened in Missouri...The election is really about the few battleground states.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
It's amazing, isn't it, Nutty? The electoral college wasn't outdated just six years ago when the Democrats kept ignoring the popular vote and crowing about the electoral college results.

Hmm, I wonder what was different between the 2012 and 2016 election for the Democrats ...
in 2012 Obama won both the popular and EC vote. WTF are you talking about?
 

Winston

Do you feel lucky, Punk
OK, fair enough. But when you said how our country was "designed," that sounded like the Constitution to me. The rest then sounds to me like it was saying the Constitution isn't being followed. I'll admit you didn't explicitly say that, but you have to admit why I took it that way

Original quote:
Seriously people running from the kitchen to the bedroom to vote, need to be euthanized
 

kaz

Small l libertarian
77,000 votes spread over WI MI and PA gave Trump the electoral win. Trump can't count on those 77,000 voters to be with him in 2020.
That's right. The Democrats can run anyone you'll definitely win. I think you should go with that. Don't learn anything, there's no reason to. Doing what you did last time will result in a totally different result
 

trapdoor

Governor
Tho popular vote compact needs a few more states to add up to 270 electors. In case you hadn't noticed, no campaign events happened in Missouri...The election is really about the few battleground states.
Missouri is among those battleground states, but you miss the point. Amending the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority of the states to ratify -- and you can't get 2/3s to do that because it means taking a lot of electoral power away from Arizona, Alabama, Kansas New Mexico, Missouri Montana, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Kentucky, Idaho, Mississippi, Utah, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Texas -- and a half dozen others I'm skipping from memory. Too many states would oppose the idea.
 

kaz

Small l libertarian
Missouri is among those battleground states, but you miss the point. Amending the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority of the states to ratify -- and you can't get 2/3s to do that because it means taking a lot of electoral power away from Arizona, Alabama, Kansas New Mexico, Missouri Montana, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Kentucky, Idaho, Mississippi, Utah, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Texas -- and a half dozen others I'm skipping from memory. Too many states would oppose the idea.
That's Plan A.

Plan B. Stack the Supreme Court and have the Constitution declared Unconstitutional and decree the popular vote under the guise the Constitution isn't treating every citizen equally. I think they'll eventually do it
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Missouri is among those battleground states, but you miss the point. Amending the Constitution requires a 2/3 majority of the states to ratify -- and you can't get 2/3s to do that because it means taking a lot of electoral power away from Arizona, Alabama, Kansas New Mexico, Missouri Montana, Ohio, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Wyoming, the Dakotas, Kentucky, Idaho, Mississippi, Utah, Nebraska, Tennessee, and Texas -- and a half dozen others I'm skipping from memory. Too many states would oppose the idea.
The battleground states are where the election takes place. 94% of all election events took place in 12 states.
https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/campaign-events-2016

 

middleview

President
Supporting Member

trapdoor

Governor
That's Plan A.

Plan B. Stack the Supreme Court and have the Constitution declared Unconstitutional and decree the popular vote under the guise the Constitution isn't treating every citizen equally. I think they'll eventually do it
Well, I told people I'd vote for a dead chimp before I'd vote for Hillary, mostly because I didn't want her to have SCOTUS appointments. Looks like I'll have to hold my nose and vote for Trump again (I'll say the Russians made me do it).
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
I'd say you still missed the point.
What do you think would be the down side of using the popular vote instead of the EC?
The fact is that there were two elections where the EC didn't match the popular vote. You like it because your "team" won, but gave us two of the worst presidents I've seen in my 66 years.

The upside would be that my vote would be equal to the vote of a person in Montana or Rhode Island. Republicans in California would have a reason to turn out to vote for president. Candidates would be running a national campaign, not just working the numbers in the battleground states.
 
Top