• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Electoral College

it's just me said:
Awww, are you still butthurt about the times your candidate didn't win the electoral vote?
Click to expand...
Yeah you’ll be pissed off too if your party won the election and lost the election at the same time. In fact if it ever happened to a republican they would likely change the constitution.

This happens with the legislature in Michigan on a routine basis thanks to gerrymandering.
 
mrjurrs said:
In WY, it takes @ 194,000 people to generate a single EC vote.
In CA, it takes @ 715,000 people to generate a single EC vote.

Repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929.
Click to expand...
100%

that law is undemocratic garbage
 
mrjurrs said:
In WY, it takes @ 194,000 people to generate a single EC vote.
In CA, it takes @ 715,000 people to generate a single EC vote.

Repeal the Reapportionment Act of 1929.
Click to expand...
If we take the Senators out of the equation because each State get 2, then California does better than these smaller states.

Wyoming population 581,000 - 1 representative
Vermont population 623,000 - 1 representative
Alaska population 724,000 - 1 representative
North Dakota population 770,000 - 1 representative
South Dakota population 896,000 - 1 representative
Montana population 1,000,000 - 1 representative

California as you stated 1 representative for every 715,000, looks pretty fair to me.
 
mrjurrs said:
You really do play the Constitution both ways don't you? First, while you could bring a case citing your position, this is a clear 10th Amendment issue with settled law allowing states wide latitude in determining how their electors are selected. Second, each of the states that are currently in this effort, speak only to their states rights when the underlying requirements of implementing the law occur.

This would not be a national popular vote. Thanks for reading the cite though...
Click to expand...
As I have repeatedly said, you should have gotten an education instead of that leftist indoctrination, it would have served you better. It is not my fault that you have never bothered to read the US Constitution. The Tenth Amendment says:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
Click to expand...

Since Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2 of the US Constitution is a very clear prohibition to the States, it is not a Tenth Amendment issue.

Any attempt by any State to use a "national popular vote" to determine their Electors will be tossed by the courts as unconstitutional. Just like everything else anti-American leftist filth have attempted.
 
highroller said:
Yeah you’ll be pissed off too if your party won the election and lost the election at the same time. In fact if it ever happened to a republican they would likely change the constitution.

This happens with the legislature in Michigan on a routine basis thanks to gerrymandering.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you guys always have an excuse for losing.
 
it's just me said:
Yeah, you guys always have an excuse for losing.
Click to expand...
Trump is now "you guys"? Remember when he stated on record that "the only way I lose this election is if it is rigged"?
 
Logician Man said:
Trump is now "you guys"? Remember when he stated on record that "the only way I lose this election is if it is rigged"?
Click to expand...

No, "you guys" project your faults on others.
 
it's just me said:
No, "you guys" project your faults on others.
Click to expand...
You don't remember before the election ever took place in Nov./2020, Trump went on national tv, and professed " the only way I lose this election if is the election is rigged"? Is that what you are claiming, or are you simply refusing to answer the fair and simple question?
 
highroller said:
I’m sorry, what?
Click to expand...
It was a reference to IJM possibly having 'Democrat Derangement Syndrome', based on his posting history of disdain for those of leftist political lean.
 
Logician Man said:
It was a reference to IJM possibly having 'Democrat Derangement Syndrome', based on his posting history of disdain for those of leftist political lean.
Click to expand...
Okay, the only things I could find were Doctor of Dental Surgery and Drop Dead Sexy.
 
Terryj said:
How can you honestly say that Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Alaska, Delaware and Montana are over represented, each State is guaranteed a Republican form of government comprised of 2 Senators and at least in the fore mentioned States 1 Representative, would you rather they not be represented at all.
Click to expand...
a vote in SD carries 3 times the EC weight than 1 vote in CA. That is unequal representation. One person, one vote is equal representation.
 
rahl said:
a vote in SD carries 3 times the EC weight than 1 vote in CA. That is unequal representation. One person, one vote is equal representation.
Click to expand...
That could be fixed if they get rid of the apportionment act of 1929
 
Terryj said:
Since the EC isn't set up by population but by the number of Senators and Representatives each State has, then it is a very fair system of voting for the POTUS. Why do you think that Delaware objected to the direct vote method of voting when the Constitution was being debated. It was a way of allowing even the least populated States a voice in selecting the POTUS.
Click to expand...
Read the Constitution. The EC today does not work the way it was set up in the Constitution. By arbitrarily limiting the number of House members, Congress has altered the idea behind the EC. Today WY has an electoral vote for every 193,692 residents. CA has one for every 720,246. How do you consider that fair? Fair would be giving CA 68 EC votes.
 
Terryj said:
If we take the Senators out of the equation because each State get 2, then California does better than these smaller states.

Wyoming population 581,000 - 1 representative
Vermont population 623,000 - 1 representative
Alaska population 724,000 - 1 representative
North Dakota population 770,000 - 1 representative
South Dakota population 896,000 - 1 representative
Montana population 1,000,000 - 1 representative

California as you stated 1 representative for every 715,000, looks pretty fair to me.
Click to expand...
And if if's and buts were cherries and nuts we'd all have a merry christmas. Senators count.
 
Glitch said:
As I have repeatedly said, you should have gotten an education instead of that leftist indoctrination, it would have served you better. It is not my fault that you have never bothered to read the US Constitution. The Tenth Amendment says:


Since Article 1, Section 10, Clause 2 of the US Constitution is a very clear prohibition to the States, it is not a Tenth Amendment issue.

Any attempt by any State to use a "national popular vote" to determine their Electors will be tossed by the courts as unconstitutional. Just like everything else anti-American leftist filth have attempted.
Click to expand...
Continue to mistate if you'd like. Looking forward to your explanation of how 1,10,2 applies...
"No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom