And it would be an equally bad situation if Hillz had won in the same manner and, given that she is prone to a bit of arrogance herself, a good many independents and conservatives would be making the same "EC is an unmitigated disaster" argument right now. And that's because she too could be labeled as somewhat guilty of having "never appealed to the nation as a whole."
The only saving grace is, she's less bat**** crazy than Trump.
That is conjecture based on nothing but projection
We do.
Yes, it IS indeed conjecture but it's not based on projection.
But conjecture, GUILTY AS CHARGED, except that I might even be willing to "make book" on my assertion, given that familiar patterns in electoral politics abound that fit the exact same mold.
There is no sensible way for me to say that MY opinion is "right" and yours (whatever it might be) on the matter is "wrong", and I am not attempting to claim any such thing.
I am just voicing my hunch that many conservatives and indies would be inspired to broach the EC unmitigated disaster argument on the heels of a Hillary victory in 2016.
You don't agree with MY hunch? Oh well, that's fine.
This is a really weird 2020 election cycle that is brewing. The primary platform of the Democrats so far is "Change the Fundamental Structure of the Constitution and Federal Government to Favor Democrats"...
Running against Democrats is like playing Candyland with a 4 year old... the want to change the rules to suit them.
Everyone has a right to move to a small population state. I'd even encourage it.
Your problem is that you hate the Federal system and don't want STATES treated the same. But then left wing progressive politics has always favored a monarchy...
~~~~~~
DENIAL is not a river in Egypt…
The History of the Democratic Party – Rooted in Slavery ...
The History of the Democratic Party – Rooted in Slavery - Revolutionary Workers Group...
If Congress remained under the control of the Democrats, the slave owners would control the wealth of the country. Between the Northern industrialists and the Southern plantation-owners a deadly struggle was developing over which system of exploitation would rule …
************Democrats want to keep you on the plantation
Millennial Views...
By being on these programs you become a financial slave to the government having to keep them happy. The democrats have corralled you into big cities away from their white constituents who live in the suburbs. They also conduct population control through aborting mostly black babies.
No, we do not. Votes in small states are effectively 'worth' more than votes in populous states. And in Tennessee, which goes reliably Republican, my vote essentially doesn't count, and Tennessee is mostly ignored by the Presidential campaigns because campaigning here is a waste of time. The same is true for Republicans in CA. No one running for President could give a damn about them, and no one tries to swing those Republicans or independents in CA because it's so heavily democratic that there is no point to trying.
And we've got several people on this thread parroting arguments made explicitly very often that the purpose of the EC is at least in part to ensure that rural votes are worth more per person than urban votes. All those saying they don't want the major population centers deciding elections are arguing for those who live in big cities to have their votes count LESS than those living out in the country in low-population states.
I appreciate that as an argument, but do is there anything to support it? Citations? Studies? I'm serious here. You have a hypothesis, but does it have validity?
First of all, I don't think it is an end run around the Constitution.
Article II (Executive Branch), Section 1 (The President) states, in pertinent part: 48 of the States currently have "winner-take-all" provisions for selecting electors, but Nebraska and Maine do it proportionally. One suggestion is that all States adopt the proportional approach, but nothing requires that. Why winner-take-all? To get candidates to campaign there. Political, yes, but not unconstitutional. Some States require that electors be "pledged" and even enforce that with penalties. Others do not. Is that a constitutionality issue? Nope. Neither is the popular vote proposal.
The team which gets the most points should win.... just lie the candidate who gets the most votes should win.
That's stupid. Since when is 1 person, 1 vote, with each vote counting the same in electing our President, a "monarchy?"
That's stupid. Since when is 1 person, 1 vote, with each vote counting the same in electing our President, a "monarchy?"
The team that does get the most points, wins. The team that gets the most points in Michigan wins; the team that gets the most points in New York wins; the team that gets the most points in North Carolina... ECT.
Ironically, proposals such as the compact could lead to a situation where the person who receives the least points in Michigan, or New York or North Carolina wins
I guess we'll all check with you before debating the EC about the proper time for such discussion. If it's not 20 months or so out from the next Presidential election, when should we have this debate?
No, your vote counts the same no matter what state you are living it. Now you only matter if you live in a swing state. That is wrong on every level. The EC is dumb except as a check on voter stupidity - a role it has never performed.
I don’t see how NPV contracts solve for any of that. In fact, it would render up to 49% of votes as worth 0. You might as well not even bother counting in most States.
No, your vote counts the same no matter what state you are living it. Now you only matter if you live in a swing state. That is wrong on every level. The EC is dumb except as a check on voter stupidity - a role it has never performed.
No, your vote counts the same no matter what state you are living it. Now you only matter if you live in a swing state. That is wrong on every level. The EC is dumb except as a check on voter stupidity - a role it has never performed.
Here is howHow do I know what is in the Constitution what your team is done changing it? You would have to add something to address a popular vote tie, that is what I'm requesting. The Constitution today has tie breaking procedures and has covered every eventuality.
I'll take the orderly transition of power while you hunt for a way to make things disorderly by claiming a tie isn't possible. There have been plenty of things in my lifetime that were impossible, and yet they have happened.
Again, not what the United States is.....do you understand the difference between direct and representative Democracy?
No, we do not. Votes in small states are effectively 'worth' more than votes in populous states. And in Tennessee, which goes reliably Republican, my vote essentially doesn't count, and Tennessee is mostly ignored by the Presidential campaigns because campaigning here is a waste of time. The same is true for Republicans in CA. No one running for President could give a damn about them, and no one tries to swing those Republicans or independents in CA because it's so heavily democratic that there is no point to trying.
And we've got several people on this thread parroting arguments made explicitly very often that the purpose of the EC is at least in part to ensure that rural votes are worth more per person than urban votes. All those saying they don't want the major population centers deciding elections are arguing for those who live in big cities to have their votes count LESS than those living out in the country in low-population states.
That's stupid. Since when is 1 person, 1 vote, with each vote counting the same in electing our President, a "monarchy?"
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?