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

End winner take all in the electoral college and let the true voice of the people be heard.

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Yeah. after thinking about it, I was, as usual, 100% correct. There were the large population centers in Philadelphia, New York and Boston, and they were seeking to limit the ability of the residents of those population centers to impose their will on the rest of the nation, especially those who lived in rural states who lived completely different lives (then, as now) from those of the urban elites.
Doesn't get much funnier. So first you said you didn't post the founders were worried about the cities controlling the country...then when having had your nose rubbed in your post (which you said you didn't write) now you say you did, but in fact you were right.....o_O

So the population of Philadelphia in 1776 was 40,000. Boston was 15,000. New York was 25,000.

The population of the country was 2.4 million.

 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Doesn't get much funnier. So first you said you didn't post the founders were worried about the cities controlling the country...then when having had your nose rubbed in your post (which you said you didn't write) now you say you did, but in fact you were right.....o_O

So the population of Philadelphia in 1776 was 40,000. Boston was 15,000. New York was 25,000.

The population of the country was 2.4 million.
And no one lived in the surrounding areas? That is, of course, absurd!

Screenshot 2020-02-16 at 7.28.27 PM.png
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
As I demonstrated in post #250, I was, as usual, correct.
Forgot that last part.

That is, literally, what you said. Seems like whenever you post something stupid you, like Trump, deny you said it, then say it wasn't what you meant or you admit you said it but were right all along...
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Forgot that last part.

That is, literally, what you said. Seems like whenever you post something stupid you, like Trump, deny you said it, then say it wasn't what you meant or you admit you said it but were right all along...
Regardless, I not only admitted it - I demonstrated that it was 100% correct.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
The "dailyfaggots.com" are shit for source. Much like the Communist News Network. Legislative sanctions are ponderous and inhibit executive flexibility. Every dick in the Senate who wants to be president pulls this kind of shit.
Funny thing....you have no source at all to back you up. The sanctions in the senate came from one of Trump's supporters....Lindsay Graham?

Every republican dick on PJ pulls your kind of shit. Make an accusation and when proven wrong you attack the source, even if the source was one of your own just a few days ago.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Up to your old self-delusional tricks I see.
He made the statement about cities, then said he didn't, then claimed he was right in the first place....

Of course he has you right behind him. Proof I'm right and both of you suck at actually proving anything.
 
He made the statement about cities, then said he didn't, then claimed he was right in the first place....

Of course he has you right behind him. Proof I'm right and both of you suck at actually proving anything.
I proved that people are naturally inclined to believe anybody else versus you.
 

oldgulph

Council Member
The Founders did not intend that women, black people, and native Americans vote.

Most of the founders intended that only in some states white men with significant money could vote for president.

Prior to arriving at the eventual wording of section 1 of Article II, the Constitutional Convention specifically voted against a number of different methods for selecting the President, including
● having state legislatures choose the President,
● having governors choose the President, and
● a national popular vote.

After these (and other) methods were debated and rejected, the Constitutional Convention decided to leave the entire matter to the states.

The Constitutional Convention rejected states awarding electors by state legislatures or governors (as the majority did for decades), or by Districts (as Maine and Nebraska now do), or by letting the people vote for electors (as 48 states now do).

Anyone who supports the current presidential election system, believing it is what the Founders intended and that it is in the Constitution, is mistaken. The current presidential election system does not function, at all, the way that the Founders thought that it would.

Supporters of National Popular Vote find it hard to believe the Founding Fathers would endorse the current electoral system where 38+ states and voters now are completely politically irrelevant.
10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant now.

Policies important to the citizens of the 38 non-battleground states are not as highly prioritized as policies important to ‘battleground’ states when it comes to governing.

“Battleground” states receive 7% more presidentially controlled grants than “spectator” states, twice as many presidential disaster declarations, more Superfund enforcement exemptions, and more No Child Left Behind law exemptions.

Today, any state legislature simply could enact a law to just appoint their electors directly, ending their citizens voting in presidential elections

The Founders created the Electoral College, but 48 states eventually enacted state winner-take-all laws.

Unable to agree on any particular method for selecting presidential electors, the Founding Fathers left the choice of method exclusively to the states in Article II, Section 1
“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, universal suffrage, and the 48 state-by-state winner-take-all method) 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, a majority of the states appointed their presidential electors by appointment by the legislature or by the governor and his cabinet, the people had no vote for President in most states, and in states where there was a popular vote, only men who owned a substantial amount of property could vote, and only three states used the state-by-state winner-take-all method to award electoral votes.

The current winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes is not in the U.S. Constitution. It was not debated at the Constitutional Convention. It is not mentioned in the Federalist Papers. It was not the Founders’ choice. It was used by only three states in 1789, and all three of them repealed it by 1800. It is not entitled to any special deference based on history or the historical meaning of the words in the U.S. Constitution. The actions taken by the Founding Fathers make it clear that they never gave their imprimatur to the winner-take-all method. The winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes became dominant only in the 1880s after the states adopted it, one-by-one, in order to maximize the power of the party in power in each state. The Founders had been dead for decades

The constitutional wording does not encourage, discourage, require, or prohibit the use of any particular method for awarding a state's electoral votes.

States have the responsibility and constitutional power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond. Now, 38 states, of all sizes, and their voters, because they vote predictably, are politically irrelevant in presidential elections.
 

oldgulph

Council Member
5,187,019 Californians live in rural areas.
1,366,760 New Yorkers live in rural areas.

Now, because of statewide winner-take-all laws for awarding electors, minority party voters in the states don’t matter.

California and New York state together would not dominate the choice of President under National Popular Vote because there is an equally populous group of Republican states (with 58 million people) that gave Trump a similar percentage of their vote (60%) and a similar popular-vote margin (6 million).

In 2016, New York state and California Democrats together cast 9.7% of the total national popular vote.

California & New York state account for 16.7% of the voting-eligible population Alone, they could not determine the presidency.

In total New York state and California (84 electors in total) cast 16% of the total national popular vote

In total, Florida (29), Texas (38), and Pennsylvania (20) (87 total) cast 18% of the total national popular vote.
Trump won those states.

All the voters – 66% -- in the 45 other states and DC would matter and count equally.

The vote margin in California and New York wouldn't have put Clinton over the top in the popular vote total without the additional 60 million votes she received in other states.

In 2004, among the four largest states, the two largest Republican states (Texas and Florida) generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Bush, while the two largest Democratic states generated a total margin of 2.1 million votes for Kerry.

New York state and California together cast 15.7% of the national popular vote in 2012.
About 62% Democratic in CA, and 64% in NY.

New York and California have 15.6% of Electoral College votes. Now that proportion is all reliably Democratic.

Under a popular-vote system CA and NY would have less weight than under the current system because their popular votes would be diluted among candidates.
 

EatTheRich

President
If you added up the 20 least populous states (or whatever it is) and added up their vote totals then Trump probably moves ahead of Hillary Clinton in total votes if added to the California votes. That said, why should 1 highly populated state get to dictate to the 20 who reject it? The founders were very straightforward in rejecting that notion. They wanted a President with broad appeal.....like in this map:

View attachment 48450

Any questions?
Yes, by “broad appeal” do you mean having support in areas that are virtually uninhabited?
 
Top