85 - 15

Straw man

 

Out of curiosity, if we could wave a magic wand and make popular vote the rules for electing a president, what makes you think that the vote totals would be the same as prior to that rule change?

 

so you don't know what a strawman is?

 

This idea of popular vote is flawed as it doesn't take into account all the republican voters who don't waste time going to vote in deep blue states like california and NY. The amount of which is far greater than those of democrat in red states. If the USA move to a popular vote system, there is no garantee that the democrats would come out on top.

 

My thoughts precisely. The vote totals would be vastly different.

 

@Ddyad

As baseless as those Supreme Court cases @WillReadmore claims give the Federals the right to occupy State lands.
What cases?
ref. #634
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/85-15.565509/page-26#post-1071258844


Once caught, trolls & liars move on while disparaging the "catcher".
True people admit to an error and move on.

Si?

 

why would they be different? And so what if they are different? I don't care if they are different. I simply want every vote to count the same. MILLIONS of people on both sides, residing in states dominated by one party or the other simply don't vote because they know their vote is meaningless.

 

-Both candidates would drastically alter their campaign strategy and resources

-There are an awful lot of people in states like New York, Texas, California, etc that do not bother turning out to vote because it is a foregone conclusion which candidate is going to win that state.

If they are different.....then your gloating about Republicans ever winning the popular vote again is wholly meaningless.

The beauty in our Constitution is that it provides for changes to our Constitution via the amendment process. I suggest you that you begin a campaign to pass the amendment that you desire. I personally do not support your amendment, but I most certainly support your right to attempt to get it passed. Personally, I believe in more power being given to states as opposed to the federal government ( as did the framers), and as such, the electoral college is the perfect solution. I wish you the best of luck in your endeavor however.

 

As a general rule people who can easily admit error and move on are rather rare.
This is closer to the human norm:

 

It's totally off topic here.

If you want to start a thread assaulting the constitution, go for it.

 

people have access to candidates campaigns 24/7. Candidates can run their campaigns from their garages if they wanted to and never visit a single city/state and everyone would have just as much access.

It wasn't a gloat.

I simply favor equality, not affirmative action.

 

Review the thread. I am just responding to your posts. Perhaps you should start a new thread to discuss assaults on the COTUS. Your ideas on most subjects are usually interesting.

 

In my view, that would be a good thing, as it would move focus toward the issues faced by the majority of Americans.

Congress already has methods for protection against tyranny of the majority - for example, the Senate has cloture, equal representation of the states, equal representation in committees, and other rules.

I don't see a down side here, either. That factor could affect any party.


I think the two largest problems have to do with what's going on in states (assaults on democracy within specific states using laws of polling places, registration, hardware (availability and corruptibility), gerrymandering, etc.) and the fact that Washington, DC has NO representation in congress - while DC is more populous than two states and the federal congress has control over financial and other decisions of DC. Citizens in Washington DC can't pass budget, taxes, borrow for infrastructure, etc., without approval of a congress in which they have NO REPRESENTATION!!! THEN we dump on them for being poorly run!!! America ceded the Virginia portion of Washington, DC back to Virginia so THEY could make needed infrastructure improvements, etc. We KNOW what the solution is. There is no logic in all DC being controlled by a congress (which holds DC as an afterthought) in which DC has no representation.

Another gross injustice is Puerto Rico. Every Puerto Rican is an American citizen. Yet, they can not vote in the federal election and again they have NO congressmen - even though they are ruled by congress!

We fought a WAR over crap like the above!

 

You reject the constitution.

Why should I bother to discuss with you rulings that are (as per our constitution) based on the constitution?

You probably aren't even aware that states WANTED federal ownership, as the chaos of land speculation and claims issues needed to be resolved in an orderly and fair fashion - a need that continues to exist.

If you want to change this, we have a government for that.

We don't resolve such issues by arson and gunfights on the range.

 

You should probably tell this to the candidates because they are spending hundreds of millions traveling around the country.

Call it whatever you want. Call it Jabberwocky if that makes you happy. To answer your question of "what if it is different"......then your Jabberwocky is wholly meaningless.

You clearly favor the federal government over states rights. That is your prerogative. Good luck with passing your amendment.

 

I favor states rights over that of the federal government. I am personally glad that our President is elected by the states as opposed to a simple popular vote. Clearly, the framers felt as I do.

 

OK

it's not meaningless.

I favor equality over affirmative action. You appear to favor inequality and affirmative action.

 

-It is meaningless if it only applies when popular vote is not the rule in place but changes when it is in place. It is sort of like gloating when your losing football team gained a few more yards than the winner. Who cares?

-The framers said not one thing about affirmative action. For that matter, such a thing did not exist in their day. I think it is cute though how you are now trying to insist that a concept that didn't exist until 200 years later is what they REALLY were after. I find hardcore leftists to be hilarious in their rationale.

 

that doesn't make anything meaningless.

is it that you don't know what affirmative action means? Let me help you. Those poor little unpopulated states feel small and oppressed. in the 18th century, we didn't have computers or tv, so not everyone had access to a candidates campaign. So candidates had to travel to each state/district. This was the reason for the EC. it's now the 21st century. The EC is not obsolete, and is nothing more than affirmative action for unpopulated states. A vote in Wyoming weighs 3 times more than a vote in CA. That is grossly unequal and entirely un-American.

 

Candidates spend their money very carefully.

The fact that we have state by state primaries means they need to win early primaries - so that is a huge factor in where they are and where they spend.

I don't believe such an amendment will pass for a long, long time. The stakes are too high. Republicans can not afford to give up the advantage they have in the EC, because they have to be concerned about winning more than about democracy.

 

It is as meaningless as gloating that your losing football team gained a few more yards than the winner. Who cares?

LOL....nowhere in the above bizarre ramble is there a definition of affirmative action.

 

- I was talking specifically about the general election. The primaries are governed by the parties themselves, not the Constitution.

-I agree that an amendment is highly unlikely to pass. The amendment process was designed to be difficult. I am not so sure that Republicans truly have an advantage with the EC. I distinctly remember being told that it was likely in 2000 that Bush would win the popular and lose the EC. I was also told in 2016 that regardless of close popular vote polling, that Trump did not have a path to 270.

 

Things have changed dramatically since that time.

More importantly, the issues of Washington, DC and Puerto Rico have to do with EXACTLY the issues our framers were MOST concerned about.

Representation was a HUGE deal to them. The idea of populations larger than states being ruled directly by a congress in which they have no representation is something they would have seen as absolutely unacceptable.

You can't defend "states rights" while having populations larger than states have NO representation in the governmental body that rules them.

 

For one, low population states essentially get affirmative action as measured in terms of the presidential election.

 

Essentially? If you need that as a qualifier, then the definition does not apply.