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.

Your claim of "Mob rule" is silly. It is still representative democracy. People will still have no real say in legislative matters.
Think hard on it and you'll understand that a literal lynch mob is 'democracy' in action.

Plus, I've told you before. Let all citizens vote by computer for legislation put on the floor of the House by congressmen and I'll support that 'democracy'.
 

Spamature

President
Think hard on it and you'll understand that a literal lynch mob is 'democracy' in action.

Plus, I've told you before. Let all citizens vote by computer for legislation put on the floor of the House by congressmen and I'll support that 'democracy'.
No a lynch mob is anarchy. Unless you prove that every computer used for voting has not been compromised that is a bad idea. Especially when the compromise is built into most of the processors in use.

 
No a lynch mob is anarchy.
No, a lynch mob is the sublime and unfiltered will of the people. It is what all "democracies" devolve into. It is why the Democrats in the south were so good at it and why they run around like chickens with their heads lopped off demanding 'democracy'.

Unless you prove that every computer used for voting has not been compromised that is a bad idea.
Do you do that every time you post a financial transaction with your bank? Why not? ha ha. I can easily come up with statistical ways to validate a national electronic vote. Can't you? Why not?
 

OldSchool

Council Member
I have no idea if that is factual; link it.

Some states have passed laws giving the power to a commission.

But note that someone still draws up districts. Why are retired judges or a commission pure as the driven snow?
I'd prefer elected legislators do the work rather than unelected people.
It was on the Michigan ballot a few years ago. I had a time hard with it..... are elected officials going to do a fair job of drawing district lines or a committee of individuals who would be given that specific task ?????
 

OldSchool

Council Member
I guess you missed my post where I said I like the idea of breaking up the electoral votes in each state by that states votes. But the popular vote gives too much power to masses of people from the same state or city even.
That, I understand and could live with States dividing up electoral votes if properly done. If not properly done, wouldn't it be just a resemblance of the popular vote?
 
Last edited:

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Think hard on it and you'll understand that a literal lynch mob is 'democracy' in action.

Plus, I've told you before. Let all citizens vote by computer for legislation put on the floor of the House by congressmen and I'll support that 'democracy'.
That would be mob rule.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Isn't the EC divided equally to states based upon the number of voices that state has in Congress? Good lord, dullard, you don't even know the basic history of the EC or how it came about.
"Divided equally" shows how bad your math skills are.
Since congressional representation is based on a curve...your logic is lame.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Wait, what? How is that not a de facto elimination of the EC? It was put in the Constitution PRECISELY to do what you want to render it incapable of - allow the big cities to set the national agenda. It's exact purpose is in keeping with the founders' intention that the federal government have limited power over the states (individuals).
 

SW48

Administrator
Staff member
Supporting Member
Exactly why I prefer the popular vote.
You nor Spamature answered my question question which was do you agree or disagree that candidates would campaign differently and many voters that didn't vote in states guaranteed to go one way would come out to vote if it was popular vote that won.
 

SW48

Administrator
Staff member
Supporting Member
That, I understand and could live with States dividing up electoral votes if properly done. If not properly done, wouldn't it be just a resemblance of the popular vote?
No it would not be the same as the popular vote because each state would only have x amount of electoral votes to give out.

Whereas the popular vote is based on total votes regardless of state.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
We still do not get equal voices. The number of electors is not based on the number of voters, nor is it based on the number of votes cast. It is based on both voters and non-voters. The pretense of somehow "hearing the voice" of a state when most of them are not even voting is laughable. If only 50% of the population votes, then the state should only get to award 50% of their electors. Then do it proportionately...that isn't perfect, but it doesn't reward a state that discourages turnout.
Yes, we are all well aware of your oft-stated desire to gut the electoral college. Which, of course delineates the precise differences between your desired policy agenda and Ocasio-Cortez' - exactly none! There's that (laughable) middle" view of yours shining through in another post...
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Wait, what? How is that not a de facto elimination of the EC? It was put in the Constitution PRECISELY to do what you want to render it incapable of - allow the big cities to set the national agenda. It's exact purpose is in keeping with the founders' intention that the federal government have limited power over the states (individuals).
Where do you dig this shit up? Find any one of the founding fathers talking about "big cities" setting the national agenda. It's exact purpose was to balance the desires of the slave states with the free states, knowing that the two blocks would vote together on that issue alone.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
Yes, we are all well aware of your oft-stated desire to gut the electoral college. Which, of course delineates the precise differences between your desired policy agenda and Ocasio-Cortez' - exactly none! There's that (laughable) middle" view of yours shining through in another post...
Can't argue on the merits, so you resort to the usual "well, you think as she does, so you must be wrong" logic.

Republicans like the EC because in close elections, when the "R" candidate loses...you still get the White House. That is all that matters, right? It isn't about small states vs large states. It is about battleground states, none of which are small. Campaigns focus on 10 states. The popular vote would encourage more people to vote...since even republican votes in California and New York and democrats in Texas would matter.
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Can't argue on the merits, so you resort to the usual "well, you think as she does, so you must be wrong" logic.

Republicans like the EC because in close elections, when the "R" candidate loses...you still get the White House. That is all that matters, right? It isn't about small states vs large states. It is about battleground states, none of which are small. Campaigns focus on 10 states. The popular vote would encourage more people to vote...since even republican votes in California and New York and democrats in Texas would matter.
Yeah, it's about stopping the progressive agenda (read: march to socialism). Which is why your support for the effort to eliminate it falls right in line with the radical leftists, and, of course, makes a mockery of your silly "middle" view "persona."
 

Raoul_Luke

I feel a bit lightheaded. Maybe you should drive.
Where do you dig this shit up? Find any one of the founding fathers talking about "big cities" setting the national agenda. It's exact purpose was to balance the desires of the slave states with the free states, knowing that the two blocks would vote together on that issue alone.
How is that in any way, shape or form NOT designed to protect the less populated states' citizens from "majority rule" by those in the more populated north eastern states? Sheesh!
 

georgephillip

Governor
Do you do that every time you post a financial transaction with your bank? Why not
Voting online lacks the same level of ID security that banking over the internet requires. State or national voter ID cards would have to include the same level of identification verification as a debit or credit card.

Hence, voting online would eliminate the secret ballot in the US.

The state (or society) would not only know if a citizen voted or not but also which candidates or causes the voter selected.
 

middleview

President
Supporting Member
How is that in any way, shape or form NOT designed to protect the less populated states' citizens from "majority rule" by those in the more populated north eastern states? Sheesh!
So you made the assertion that the founding fathers were trying to prevent big cities from controlling the national agenda, but can't find any evidence to back you up...so now you veer off into trying to claim that the battleground states are being protected from "majority rule". The battleground states are battlegrounds because they are so closely divided. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
 
Last edited:

georgephillip

Governor
How is that in any way, shape or form NOT designed to protect the less populated states' citizens from "majority rule" by those in the more populated north eastern states? Sheesh!
What if I told you 85% of Americans live in places with a smaller population than the 50th largest US city?

https://www.nationalpopularvote.com/section_9.5

"QUICK ANSWER:
  • Under a national popular vote, every vote would be equal throughout the United States. A vote cast in a big city would be no more (or less) valuable or controlling than a vote cast anywhere else.
  • Los Angeles does not control the outcome of statewide elections in California and therefore is hardly in a position to dominate a nationwide election. The fact that Los Angeles does not control the outcome of statewide elections in its own state is evidenced by the fact that Republicans such as Ronald Reagan, George Deukmejian, Pete Wilson, and Arnold Schwarzenegger were elected Governor in recent years without ever winning Los Angeles.
  • The origins of the myth about big cities may stem from the misconceptions that big cities are bigger than they actually are, and that big cities account for a greater fraction of the nation’s population than they actually do. In fact, 85% of the population of the United States lives in places with a population of fewer than 365,000 (the population of Arlington, Texasthe nation’s 50th biggest city)."
 
Top