1. Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?
    Dismiss Notice

The popular vote isn't a thing

Discussion in 'Latest Political News and Current Events' started by kaz, May 23, 2019.

  1. Colorforms

    Colorforms Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    22,801
    Likes Received:
    5,453
    • Funny Funny x 1
  2. Colorforms

    Colorforms Senator

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2011
    Messages:
    22,801
    Likes Received:
    5,453
  3. Dino

    Dino Operational Overwatch

    Joined:
    Sep 19, 2011
    Messages:
    22,350
    Likes Received:
    3,986
    Your side does not care enough to insure electoral integrity to make your idea workable.
    As long as one side is not interested in enforcing our election laws and standards it is impossible to make sure "every vote counts". Quite to the contrary any illegal vote cast (felons, impersonating legal voters, multiple votes, dead people voting, illegals casting ballots) that isn't being enforced immediately and absolutely negates legal opposition voters.
    That should not be tolerated.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. trapdoor

    trapdoor Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    16,788
    Likes Received:
    2,179
    Mid, I'm starting to be surprised at you. You're normally among the better liberal posters on this forum, and you're completely missing the point I've now made twice or three times: It doesn't matter if I think the electoral college is good or bad, it only matters if you can get a constitutional amendment passed, and you can't do so. The small states that you'd have to recruit to get such a measure passed would have to agree, and they will not agree.

    And they won't agree because your point about having the same vote as a person is Montana or Rhode Island is wrong -- without the electoral college the votes from RI or Montana won't matter at all, and candidates will neither campaign in, nor address the concerns of, those areas. Why would they, when they can win simply on votes from NY, LA, Denver, Boston, Miami and Atlanta? Candidates go to swing states now because they need them to win votes in the electoral college. Take that away and they'll no more visit a state like Missouri or Ohio than they'd visit Paris -- they'd campaign only in big urban areas for the same reason that bank robbers rob banks to get money.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    • Disagree x 1
    • Winner Winner x 1
  5. The truth

    The truth Council Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2019
    Messages:
    899
    Likes Received:
    101
    The electoral college is absurd and outdated.Americans want true democracy,like the other countries.The new generation of voters someday soon will reject this relic from the past
     
  6. middleview

    middleview President Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    73,695
    Likes Received:
    5,564
    You assume states have electoral power even though the fact is that most states are one party states....California will go dem no matter what.
     
  7. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    60,425
    Likes Received:
    3,111
    That’s what progress looks like under capitalism. Differentiation into two great irreconcilable classes whose antagonisms are finally laid bare for all to see. Next step, expropriation of those billionaires.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  8. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    60,425
    Likes Received:
    3,111
    The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is fully consistent with the current constitutionally prescribed method of electing the president.
     
    • Disagree x 1
  9. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    60,425
    Likes Received:
    3,111
    I’m saying rural America would be better off if rural voters did not have disproportionate power.
     
    • Disagree x 1
  10. trapdoor

    trapdoor Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    16,788
    Likes Received:
    2,179
    Yes, and I think that means smaller states need to be protected. One such protection is the electoral college.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  11. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    60,425
    Likes Received:
    3,111
    Voter impersonation is about as rare as the same person being struck by lightning three times. A state is within its constitutional rights to allow felons or “illegals” to vote. Their doing so without authorization is so rare as to be nearly unheard of. Ballot box stuffing is overwhelmingly the province of the Republican Party and the Electoral College increases the incentive for it since it needs to be done only on a small scale in order to alter a close state’s electoral vote winner.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
    • Disagree x 1
  12. middleview

    middleview President Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    73,695
    Likes Received:
    5,564
    You must have missed my post about the National Popular Vote Compact...it has been passed in enough states to have almost 200 EC votes committed to the winner of the national popular vote. So there goes your constitutional amendment argument.

    Then we have your assertion that if the popular vote picks the president then votes in Montana won't matter....are you kidding? They don't matter now. There were no campaign events in Montana in 2016....and none in RI. The candidates went to Ohio, PA, VA and FLA....
     
  13. middleview

    middleview President Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2011
    Messages:
    73,695
    Likes Received:
    5,564
    Protected from what? You some how have equated the 80,000 votes that won the election for Trump to the 3 million more votes that went for Clinton...and that actually makes sense to you.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  14. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    60,425
    Likes Received:
    3,111
    Unless the cities were divided in which case rural voters would have the balance of power.

    So if all the cities were overwhelmingly in favor of a single candidate, would it make sense to let a small rural minority overrule them?
     
  15. trapdoor

    trapdoor Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    16,788
    Likes Received:
    2,179
    I must have -- but enough states are opting out that it won't matter, and if it ever affects the outcome of a presidential election, I'd expect the losing candidate to go to SCOTUS. The constitution establishes the electoral college, not a popular vote system, and the laws might be challengeable on those grounds.

    But yes, a popular vote means those votes won't matter. There will no longer be battleground states -- merely a national election (which was never designed -- it was stated many times that what was being created was a federal government, not a national one), in which the states with the largest populations rule everyone else.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  16. trapdoor

    trapdoor Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    16,788
    Likes Received:
    2,179
    Protected from a coalition of larger, more heavily populated states.
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  17. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    60,425
    Likes Received:
    3,111
    1. One goal was to balance regional interests, at a time when different states had different modes of production and radically different economies. Today this is not the case ... the economy in one state looks pretty much like the economy in another.

    2. Another was as a hedge against democracy, in order to protect the interests of an elite. History has decided against the sort of oligarchy the founders intended.

    3. Another was due to the practical limitations on campaigning in an era before mass media or rapid travel. Not an issue today.
     
  18. trapdoor

    trapdoor Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    16,788
    Likes Received:
    2,179
    Look at state-level elections in states like Illinois. In Illinois, there's Chicago and everywhere else -- and the rural portions of the state don't matter. Elections are run almost exclusively on Chicago/urban issues.

    Another example is Missouri, where a governor can be elected by carrying five of 114 counties.
     
    • Winner Winner x 1
  19. EatTheRich

    EatTheRich President

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2012
    Messages:
    60,425
    Likes Received:
    3,111
    If a large majority of the people live in one or a few cities, and they all share a common interest, why should a small minority with an antagonistic interest be able to force it on them?
     
  20. trapdoor

    trapdoor Governor

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2011
    Messages:
    16,788
    Likes Received:
    2,179
    Who said anything about a small minority? I'm talking most of the state being effectively ignored in favor of one city, simply because that city has a large population. That's why the EC was created -- to keep Virginia and New York from being the only states that matter in the original presidential elections.
     

Share This Page