Proposition for changing the US presidential popular-vote

[Logician Man]

From now on I will phrase it "Everyone knows, EXCEPT YOU..." Would that make you feel better?

Everyone knows, EXCEPT YOU, that the sun shines, the sky is blue, and that Biden is a life-long Dixiecrat bigot.

/// From now on I will phrase it " Everyone knows EXCEPT YOU..." /// And you will lose the argument ( again), right then and there for the very same reason. You don't speak for "Everyone one, but me." lol

 

[Logician Man]

You might want to look up the election results from 1960. Pay particular attention to the tens of thousands of dead voters from Chicago and Mayor Daily. Everyone knows the only reason Clinton won was because of the illegal acts to influence the election on behalf of Clinton by ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN in 1992. Those illegal acts is what created Fox News in 1996.

Democrats know they can't win legally in the Electoral College, which is why so many States deliberately violated their own election laws in 2020, so they can fix the Electoral College vote without having to pay any attention to the actual popular vote. States can choose their Electors for the Electoral College in any manner they wish, including by deliberate fraud.

You can pretend their was no election fraud, but that would only make you look like a mindless puppet and a useful tool for the Democratic Party. Which is what the media has become. They stopped being journalists over 30 years ago and have become propagandists pushing a leftist anti-American agenda instead. So the question becomes, will you be honest or just regurgitate the same propaganda lies put forth by ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN?

/// "Everyone knows the only reason Clinton won was because......" /// <-----Another lost argument as you don't speak for "Everyone." lol

 

[Glitch]

/// "Everyone knows the only reason Clinton won was because......" /// <-----Another lost argument as you don't speak for "Everyone." lol

I do actually, just not you obviously. You are apparently a species unto yourself, incapable of any rational thought, unlike the rest of humanity.

 

[Logician Man]

I do actually, just not you obviously. You are apparently a species unto yourself, incapable of any rational thought, unlike the rest of humanity.

/// I do actually /// <---- Prove it with factual evidence. I'll wait, but certainly won't be holding my breath, or expecting any 'proof' your positive claim is 'factual.' Odd you speak of "rational thought", then profess you claim to speak for all of humanity , other than myself. Some DP quality comedy there, for sure.

 

[Lafayette]

Joe Biden argued against the Second Amendment by saying that none of the amendments are absolute.

Prove it! Let's see where EXACTLY Biden argued against the Second Amendment! Context, quotation and all.

This is not a court-of-law, here. But given the BS that some people are defecating into the discussion, it's a shame they can get away with it ... !

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Prove it! Let's see where EXACTLY Biden argued against the Second Amendment! Context, quotation and all.

This is not a court-of-law, here. But given the BS that some people are defecating into the discussion, it's a shame they can get away with it ... !

lol

He said it in his public speech to Congress.

 

[TheDoctorWasIn]

lol

He said it in his public speech to Congress.

So you're trying to make a legal argument based on rhetoric?

 

[mrjurrs]

Seven of the 50 states have only one representative to the HofR.

Which is better than none ...

And which they are constitutionally guaranteed even if everyone but two guys named Max moved out of state.

 

[Court Jester]

The same "fathers" who thought slavery was a good thing. Yeah, they're credible.

Not all of them owned slaves.

Actually, the EC is cheating. It gives whites an automatic 160 Electoral Votes in all the states that are over 80% white. I am sure the Far Right whites like that.

Don't know what you are whining about. In any election the Democrats automatically have nearly all the electoral votes they need already baked into their numbers. Democrats always have more way to get to 270 than the Republicans do. Biggest problem the dems have is their voters are pretty stupid people who need their hands held in order to vote. Dems bascially have to make voting just as easy and automatic as a welfare check in the mail in order to have success.

 

[Logician Man]

Not all of them owned slaves.



Don't know what you are whining about. In any election the Democrats automatically have nearly all the electoral votes they need already baked into their numbers. Democrats always have more way to get to 270 than the Republicans do. Biggest problem the dems have is their voters are pretty stupid people who need their hands held in order to vote. Dems bascially have to make voting just as easy and automatic as a welfare check in the mail in order to have success.

Any state that allows mail-in voting doesn't restrict that mode of voting to any particular political party, or individual. Any/all voters can use that mode of voting, if they so choose. It wasn't the Dems who issued a directive to supporters to not use the safest, and most convenient mode of voting during the dead of winter during a deadly pandemic. Do you remember the dumbass's name who directed his supporters to not vote by mail?

 

[Glitch]

Any state that allows mail-in voting doesn't restrict that mode of voting to any particular political party, or individual. Any/all voters can use that mode of voting, if they so choose. It wasn't the Dems who issued a directive to supporters to not use the safest, and most convenient mode of voting during the dead of winter during a deadly pandemic. Do you remember the dumbass's name who directed his supporters to not vote by mail?

Under Alaska law a voter may request an absentee ballot, or they may vote at a State designated poll. It is illegal for the government to mail out any ballots in Alaska that has not been specifically requested by the voter. Furthermore, every ballot to be valid must contain the the voter's signature on the ballot.

Alaska has already violated those State election laws on several occasions, nor is Alaska the only State where there is systemic government election fraud occurring. They include others States like California, Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Georgia, and South Carolina that have also violated their own State election laws (or in the case of Pennsylvania, they violated their State Constitution to get Biden elected). There are most likely other States who also violated their own election laws, but those are the ten States I'm absolutely certain about.

Any State that allows mail-in voting has already been practicing systemic government election fraud for years. That is the whole purpose for mailing out ballots to non-existent voters, so the government can rig the election to benefit any candidate or proposition they desire. The ONLY purpose for government to mail out ballots is to commit deliberate election fraud.

 

[Logician Man]

Under Alaska law a voter may request an absentee ballot, or they may vote at a State designated poll. It is illegal for the government to mail out any ballots in Alaska that has not been specifically requested by the voter. Furthermore, every ballot to be valid must contain the the voter's signature on the ballot.

Alaska has already violated those State election laws on several occasions, nor is Alaska the only State where there is systemic government election fraud occurring. They include others States like California, Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Georgia, and South Carolina that have also violated their own State election laws (or in the case of Pennsylvania, they violated their State Constitution to get Biden elected). There are most likely other States who also violated their own election laws, but those are the ten States I'm absolutely certain about.

Any State that allows mail-in voting has already been practicing systemic government election fraud for years. That is the whole purpose for mailing out ballots to non-existent voters, so the government can rig the election to benefit any candidate or proposition they desire. The ONLY purpose for government to mail out ballots is to commit deliberate election fraud.

A LOT of positive claims in that^ post; supporting evidence that validates those positive claims to be factual, not so much. Very similar to your positive claim you "speak for everyone', in that regard.

 

[NatMorton]

Only the pure total popular-vote is acceptable in any Real Democracy.

Dogma.

 

[Lafayette]

lol

He said it in his public speech to Congress.

Then you had better learn "proper English" cuz you got-it WRONG ... !

 

[Glitch]

A LOT of positive claims in that^ post; supporting evidence that validates those positive claims to be factual, not so much. Very similar to your positive claim you "speak for everyone', in that regard.

You continue to swallow CNN's BS like a good leftist. Meanwhile I will stick with reality. Clearly reality is a foreign concept to your ilk.

 

[Lafayette]

A LOT of positive claims in that^ post; supporting evidence that validates those positive claims to be factual, not so much. Very similar to your positive claim you "speak for everyone', in that regard.

Ever write a remark here that was not "ad-hominem"?

Just wondering - you see, this is a Debate-Forum. Not a Message Board ...

 

[mrjurrs]

Joe Biden argued against the Second Amendment by saying that none of the amendments are absolute. Well if none of the amendments are absolute, then by extension that must mean the 13th amendment is not absolute. The 13th amendment bans Slavery. If what Joe Biden is saying is true, then it logically follows that the ban on slavery is not absolute, and the slavery is permissible in some circumstances. You can be mad about it all you want, but if you’re the logician man you must admit that there is no other logical way to interpret Biden statement. Other than that he is not with it and doesn’t know how to speak.

The 13th Amendment is not absolute. Remember this part? "...except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted..." Do you feel that any of the other Amendments are absolute?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The 13th Amendment is not absolute. Remember this part? "...except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted..." Do you feel that any of the other Amendments are absolute?

If the 13th amendment explicitly allows involuntary labor as punishment for a crime then that doesn’t argue the 13th amendment is not absolute. That allowance is written into the amendment

 

[mrjurrs]

If the 13th amendment explicitly allows involuntary labor as punishment for a crime then that doesn’t argue the 13th amendment is not absolute. That allowance is written into the amendment

I agree, and if a right has an explicit exception included in the amendment, the right is not absolute. Saying the Amendments are absolute completely discounts Article V.

 

[LostInSeattle]

It is mob rule anytime the there is a popular vote for anything. Anything based upon a majority is mob rule.

No, it is majority rule. Mob rule, as defined by Oxford, is "control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation." That's a very different thing from majority rule. Your assertion is silly, because legislators are elected by popular vote. How can the product of so-called "mob rule" create an outcome that is untainted by its origin?

The Founders wanted to attenuate the potential tyranny of the majority, so they introduced the Senate, which in the last decade or more has instituted a tyranny of the minority (something I doubt the Founders wanted either).

Not only do we not want our laws to be determined by mob rule, neither should our President. Unfortunately, lots of States have ignored the fact that the US is a constitutional republic and not a democracy, and have opted for mob rule through the unconstitutional initiative process.

What exactly is unconstitutional about the initiative process? States that allow initiatives have them authorized in their state constitutions.

You still haven't grasped that Presidents are not determined by the people in the US. Only the State legislatures have the authority to determine the President, not the people.

Certainly. However, legislators tend to conform to the wishes of their constituents. If legislator X's district overwhelmingly voted for candidate Y, and she voted to assign delegates to candidate Z, she probably won't fare well in the next election cycle. What we have, in effect, is popular vote by Proxy.

Instead of trying to alter the US Constitution, which will never happen since it requires three-fourths of the State legislatures to approve an amendment that would abolish their constitutional authority to determine the President, the States should eliminate the popular vote for President completely. That will clear up the confusion as to who has the authority to determine Presidents, and who does not.

Here's another possibility. How about states eliminate the requirement that all electors go to one candidate, and are instead distributed proportionally to the popular vote? That satisfies your requirement that states decide how to assign delegates and keeps citizens engaged in the outcome.

 

[Glitch]

No, it is majority rule. Mob rule, as defined by Oxford, is "control of a political situation by those outside the conventional or lawful realm, typically involving violence and intimidation." That's a very different thing from majority rule. Your assertion is silly, because legislators are elected by popular vote. How can the product of so-called "mob rule" create an outcome that is untainted by its origin?

I still consider any popular vote to be "mob rule." To answer your question, you can't. All popular votes are tainted, primarily by the ignorance of the voters, but also by massive government election fraud. There hasn't been "free or fair" elections in the US in more than a century, if even then. Which is a whole other problem with popular votes, and why they should be eliminated or at the very least kept to an absolute minimum.

The Founders wanted to attenuate the potential tyranny of the majority, so they introduced the Senate, which in the last decade or more has instituted a tyranny of the minority (something I doubt the Founders wanted either).

The Senate remains the more rational of the two houses, and there is no such thing as "a tyranny of the minority." That is an argument the left always makes whenever they don't get their way, like petulant children. Just before they decide to deliberately violate the US Constitution.

What exactly is unconstitutional about the initiative process? States that allow initiatives have them authorized in their state constitutions.

It violates Article IV, Section 4, Clause 1 of the US Constitution. The States are required to have a republican form of government, which does not allow for direct democracy, like with the initiative process. Elected representatives enact the laws in a republican form of government, not the general public at large.

Certainly. However, legislators tend to conform to the wishes of their constituents. If legislator X's district overwhelmingly voted for candidate Y, and she voted to assign delegates to candidate Z, she probably won't fare well in the next election cycle. What we have, in effect, is popular vote by Proxy.

With regard to presidential elections we should abolish the popular vote altogether. The US Constitution gives the State legislatures the power to determine the Electors for the Electoral College. If they wanted to flip a coin to determine their Electors, they have that constitutional authority.

Here's another possibility. How about states eliminate the requirement that all electors go to one candidate, and are instead distributed proportionally to the popular vote? That satisfies your requirement that states decide how to assign delegates and keeps citizens engaged in the outcome.

Like I said, that is entirely up to each State. 48 of the 50 States have decided to give all of their Electoral College votes to the candidate that gets the most popular votes in their State. Only two States (Maine and Nebraska) have chosen to split their vote according to the results of the popular vote in their respective States.

Since only the States can take away their power to determine the President by ratifying an amendment, I wouldn't hold my breath that anything will change any time soon. Why would any State give up their power to determine the President? That would be incredibly stupid.

 

[Sagittarius83]

I would imagine that nothing short of a US constitutional amendment will change this.

Not a proposition.

 

[Jason Warfield]

Did you think the issue of Slavery was going to be resolved at the time of our constitution or something?

*sigh*

Interestingly...the answer was that they tried to.

The problem was that the states who had large slave populations (the South, basically) threatened to leave the nation if the issue was even brought up. Washington warned that the use of arms needed to make those states comply was not available to the nation at that time; Congress had disbanded the Continental Army and had a caretaker force of 80 men for a few months and then upped it to 900 if memory serves correct from the militias from four states. And those 900 were spread out over the frontier areas.

So, there was thought to do it as evidenced in the journals and writings of the Founders, they just didn't have the military to back it up with.

 

[MaryP]

Some how you left out that small states will be out voted by large ones?

They already are, since the number of Electoral votes is determined by population. South Dakota gets three; California gets 55.

 

[MaryP]

From united states citizens. What difference does it make if you live in montana, wyoming, or the dakotas. They do not have the combined population of a large city and yet their votes still count. What about all the small cities in the center of the country that vote republican? Most of the country according to winner takes all states are red. Do you find a problem with a state that gives the winning candidate all of its electoral votes even though the opposition got forty nine percent of the state vote? That's ok?

Our state awards its electoral votes by district. We only have two, and the other two votes go to whichever candidate got the most votes overall. Seems fair.
It turned us purple the last 2 elections.