Quote:

---

Source Error:

An unhandled exception was generated during the execution of the current web request. Information regarding the origin and location of the exception can be identified using the exception stack trace below.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
The EC is a relic we should have gotten rid of 100 years ago.

It does precisely what it was supposed to prevent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:
These Democrats are truly some desperate dumb fucks if they think they could ever get away with circumventing the Constitution with unconstitutional and illegal tricks. When it comes to Federal elections, state covenants mean absolutely squat.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I don't know think one vote per state is a good answer.

I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing, and I'm not saying that I have any better ideas. I just think that is far to simplistic a "solution" and wouldn't address any of the legitimate concerns of either the current electoral college system or an all out popular vote.

I should add, that in your scenario, Puerto Rico who has never paid a dime in taxes could have an equal voice as Wisconsin in the vote for President in the next few years if they are given statehood.

---

Quote:

---

Though I don't have even the beginning of a proposal to make anything better, personally, my two concerns about the current system are that I've never lived in a state where my vote for president mattered because it leaned one way or another as a whole so far that it's never a question where those electors are going. And... the system as it works today virtually ensures that there will never be a rise of a 3rd party by giving an almost unbreakable duopoly to the Democrat and Republican parties.




But as for the popular vote compact itself...

Don't you agree that there really is zero ROI on the part of the states that have already joined it?

Almost every one of them already vote Democrat for president by a landslide, and quite a few of them have a hugely disproportionate amount of electors compared to the average state.

I could easily see this backfiring if all of the sudden a popular vote meant something for over 270 of the electoral votes in almost exclusively Democrat voting states. All it would take is getting a few million disenfranchised Republican voters off their asses to vote now that their vote actually counted and you could see the largest electoral vote for a president in the history of the country.

Meanwhile, most Republican leaning states would never join the compact, leaving them free to operate as they always did and not beholden to a popular vote.

Contrary to the optics of all of this, I think this would make it much harder for Democrats to win. They'd have to have a candidate worth voting for. One who had to rally everywhere and sell themselves to everyone. One that somehow finds that magical balance between races, sexes, sexualities and religions that doesn't offend any one group or multiple groups they are going to rely heavily on for winning the popular vote.

Meanwhile, all it would take to get the Republicans out to vote in these states is heavy advertisement campaigning that their vote finally matters in these states where their guy never wins.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by reaverfan:
The EC is a relic we should have gotten rid of 100 years ago.

It does precisely what it was supposed to prevent.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
We are rebels and will continue to fight against tyranny and oppression of the globalist elites who want to enslave us all.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Any State admitted into the Union is granted the same voice as every other State, whether it be Puerto Rico, Ontario/Quebec, Eastern Alaska, or Northern California. I cannot disagree with any of that, because that is how the Constitution is written, everybody understands those rules, every other Nation can read them, they are not secret or arbitrary, and everybody knows what must be done or not done to accomplish those goals.

---

Quote:

---

I'm not really sure if you are seeing the whole picture regarding the States in the compact.

Even a State as lopsided as CA only gave 61% to Hilliary. Compare that to an actual Electoral Landslide, like Reagan winning every State except 1. If you haven't followed, most States are really fairly close to the 50-50 mark, and are more easily flipped than some folk imagine - especially if given a decade or so to shift.

---

Quote:

---

Plus, some people seem to be confused about some nation in North America which supposedly is believed to be a Democracy. On The Other Hand, any reasonable educated person knows that between Mexico and Canada is a Republic called The United States of America.

---

Quote:

---

However, if you are interested in spurring the disenfranchised citizen of these Liberal bastions to come out and vote, there is one solution for you to consider.

Maine and Nebraska seem to be doing it. The 2 Electors allotted to the Senate Seats are selected from the winner of the whole Statewide vote tally. But each of the Electors representing the individual Congressional Districts are selected based upon which candidate/Party won the majority within that CD. Assuming I understand that correctly.
Not only would that spur voters to get out and show their strength (CA has 14 GOP Representatives, and could presumably vote in that many Electors, plus perhaps more if Citizens thought their Vote might matter, not being Disenfranchised by all of the Illegal Alien Voters, Fraudulent Voters, and other Democrat cheating practices from LA and San Fran), but this could spur more enthusiastic 3rd Party challenges.
In the past 30 years, I do believe other Parties have won entire Congressional Districts in various States, and would have affected the Electoral College if they had those Electors.

Also, Candidates would be far more interested to visit these locales. Trump might wish to visit a strong GOP place like Orange County CA for donation cash, but he might then detour to hotly contested Congressional Districts which he has a chance of swinging his way, if it meant another EV. As it is now, there is no reason for anybody of the Dems or GOP to visit these places - they won't change the Elector count from that State, and those places don't really generate as much campaign funding as Hollywood or Orange County. Candidates from other Parties do have ample reason to visit such locations which are ignored by the 2 major Parties.

I think I have heard of another system. This one allocates Electors as a percentage of the vote results.
Let's say CA has 52 Electors. 2 representing the Senators would be allocated to the Party which won the majority of the whole State, like now. Then the remaining 50 would be split up based upon the vote. Last time, Hilliary got 61.7% of the CA vote, Trump got 31.6%, Johnson got 3.37%, and Stein got 1.96%. Stein would round up to get 1 Elector, Johnson would round up to get 2 Electors, Hilliary would get at least 31 Electors, Trump would get at least 16 Electors, and that totals 50. If that did not add up to 50, then the remaining Electors would be allocated however the Law was written (or, really, interpreted).

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Any State admitted into the Union is granted the same voice as every other State, whether it be Puerto Rico, Ontario/Quebec, Eastern Alaska, or Northern California. I cannot disagree with any of that, because that is how the Constitution is written, everybody understands those rules, every other Nation can read them, they are not secret or arbitrary, and everybody knows what must be done or not done to accomplish those goals.

---

Well... not exactly.

Unless you're saying that the extra electors granted for each member of congress that a state has was not originally a part of the constitution.

There are nearly 6 million people in Wisconsin. There are barely over 3 million people in Puerto Rico.

Going to a one vote per state would put Wisconsin on the same footing as Puerto Rico once it becomes a state, whereas Wisconsin would have more power with the current system in place.

---

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I think I have heard of another system. This one allocates Electors as a percentage of the vote results.
Let's say CA has 52 Electors. 2 representing the Senators would be allocated to the Party which won the majority of the whole State, like now. Then the remaining 50 would be split up based upon the vote. Last time, Hilliary got 61.7% of the CA vote, Trump got 31.6%, Johnson got 3.37%, and Stein got 1.96%. Stein would round up to get 1 Elector, Johnson would round up to get 2 Electors, Hilliary would get at least 31 Electors, Trump would get at least 16 Electors, and that totals 50. If that did not add up to 50, then the remaining Electors would be allocated however the Law was written (or, really, interpreted).

---

I actually thought of suggesting this a few days ago, but when I re-read the post I opted not to post it...

Wouldn't that essentially be the same as awarding the Presidency to the winner of the popular vote?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

If we switch to a more fully Representative Elector, then WI and theoretical Puerto Rico each get one Elector, just as CA and RI would each get one Elector - because each of those would be one State, one member of the Union of States.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I don't have time to answer the entire post right now, but I did want to quickly answer this part:

Quote:

---

If we switch to a more fully Representative Elector, then WI and theoretical Puerto Rico each get one Elector, just as CA and RI would each get one Elector - because each of those would be one State, one member of the Union of States.

---

I really don't think that this is a good answer, like I said before. I just don't think it's very representative of the people at all. I know there's a grand history behind the seemingly arbitrary, imaginary lines we call state borders, but I know very little about it and I'm fairly confident I'm in the great majority of people who could say that.

A single vote per state would allow a vastly disproportionate amount of power to states in the Union that have hardly any people living there at all. I think this answer would be the equally bad and equally opposite solution to the problem that a flat out popular vote would be.


Off the top of my head, why is there a North and South Dakota? Second posted a few weeks back that it was done for the very purpose of getting more votes. I don't know if this is true or not, but even if there is a reasonable doubt as to why the state was split into two for this reason, it serves as a prime example of what I'm talking about here.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Why is there a North Carolina and a South Carolina? Because Sheriff Andy Taylor and Lindsey Graham couldn't possibly come from the same place.

This is not The United Persons of America.Thank God! Imagine all the chaos & confusion; UPA, UPS. oy vey!

This is The United States of America.Is it really? Hasn't seemed that way to me in a long, long time.

Rhode Island, less than 1/3 the size of Los Angeles County, is a State, as admitted to to Union. Cranberry bogs et al. Makes ya wonder, what were they thinking?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Any State admitted into the Union is granted the same voice as every other State, whether it be Puerto Rico, Ontario/Quebec, Eastern Alaska, or Northern California. I cannot disagree with any of that, because that is how the Constitution is written, everybody understands those rules, every other Nation can read them, they are not secret or arbitrary, and everybody knows what must be done or not done to accomplish those goals.

---

Well... not exactly.

Unless you're saying that the extra electors granted for each member of congress that a state has was not originally a part of the constitution.

There are nearly 6 million people in Wisconsin. There are barely over 3 million people in Puerto Rico.

Going to a one vote per state would put Wisconsin on the same footing as Puerto Rico once it becomes a state, whereas Wisconsin would have more power with the current system in place.

---

The Great Compromise was a part of the original Constitution. If we switch to a more fully Representative Elector, then WI and theoretical Puerto Rico each get one Elector, just as CA and RI would each get one Elector - because each of those would be one State, one member of the Union of States.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I'm not really sure if you are seeing the whole picture regarding the States in the compact.

Even a State as lopsided as CA only gave 61% to Hilliary. Compare that to an actual Electoral Landslide, like Reagan winning every State except 1. If you haven't followed, most States are really fairly close to the 50-50 mark, and are more easily flipped than some folk imagine - especially if given a decade or so to shift.

---

My argument to you here is that I see very clearly the whole picture regarding the states in the compact. I know that it is generally close, at least on a percentage basis.

In California, that small percentage still ended up being millions of Democrat votes, but it's much smaller of course in smaller states.

My whole point is that I can't imagine it would be too hard to get enough Republicans to vote to tip that balance the other way to make Republicans win the popular vote overall in the states that would make up the Compact and a 270+ majority of electors, simply by heavily advertising that their vote for President finally matters... especially in states that NEVER go that way, such as California.

Couple this with the fact that in 2020, we're most likely going to see an old white man running against Trump in the form of Joe Biden, and I think a lot of the Democrats that went out and voted in 2016 are going to stay home or write a protest vote and I don't think this Compact is going to work out at all like the proponents of it think it will.

Quote:

---

Plus, some people seem to be confused about some nation in North America which supposedly is believed to be a Democracy. On The Other Hand, any reasonable educated person knows that between Mexico and Canada is a Republic called The United States of America.

---

Yeah. This is true.

---

I forgot to mention that this might be one reason Liberals get so feverish about banning the Pledge of Allegiance in schools, because with the Pledge, each child learns by heart that America is a Republic. There is no word of Democracy in the Pledge.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

However, if you are interested in spurring the disenfranchised citizen of these Liberal bastions to come out and vote, there is one solution for you to consider.

---

---

Partial Elector Allocation version 1:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Maine and Nebraska seem to be doing it. The 2 Electors allotted to the Senate Seats are selected from the winner of the whole Statewide vote tally. But each of the Electors representing the individual Congressional Districts are selected based upon which candidate/Party won the majority within that CD. Assuming I understand that correctly.
Not only would that spur voters to get out and show their strength (CA has 14 GOP Representatives, and could presumably vote in that many Electors, plus perhaps more if Citizens thought their Vote might matter, not being Disenfranchised by all of the Illegal Alien Voters, Fraudulent Voters, and other Democrat cheating practices from LA and San Fran), but this could spur more enthusiastic 3rd Party challenges.
In the past 30 years, I do believe other Parties have won entire Congressional Districts in various States, and would have affected the Electoral College if they had those Electors.

Also, Candidates would be far more interested to visit these locales. Trump might wish to visit a strong GOP place like Orange County CA for donation cash, but he might then detour to hotly contested Congressional Districts which he has a chance of swinging his way, if it meant another EV. As it is now, there is no reason for anybody of the Dems or GOP to visit these places - they won't change the Elector count from that State, and those places don't really generate as much campaign funding as Hollywood or Orange County. Candidates from other Parties do have ample reason to visit such locations which are ignored by the 2 major Parties.

---

---

Partial Elector Allocation version 2:

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

I think I have heard of another system. This one allocates Electors as a percentage of the vote results.
Let's say CA has 52 Electors. 2 representing the Senators would be allocated to the Party which won the majority of the whole State, like now. Then the remaining 50 would be split up based upon the vote. Last time, Hilliary got 61.7% of the CA vote, Trump got 31.6%, Johnson got 3.37%, and Stein got 1.96%. Stein would round up to get 1 Elector, Johnson would round up to get 2 Electors, Hilliary would get at least 31 Electors, Trump would get at least 16 Electors, and that totals 50. If that did not add up to 50, then the remaining Electors would be allocated however the Law was written (or, really, interpreted).

---

I actually thought of suggesting this a few days ago, but when I re-read the post I opted not to post it...

Wouldn't that essentially be the same as awarding the Presidency to the winner of the popular vote?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Not sure whether you were referring to version 1 or 2. I added those numbers in, for clarity of discussion.

Either way, it is not the same as overall popular vote, which the Founding Fathers absolutely fought to avoid. IIRC, the first election of Washington was by Congress, which means the same as the version #1 that I said: except the 2 Senators did not necessarily vote the same way, but otherwise the Members of Congress were merely standing in for Electors that we have now.

Either of those versions, the State winner still gets the 2 Electors allocated due to Senator Seats. That is 100 Electors. Using 2016 as an example in Version #2, the difference between Hilliary's millions of illegal votes in CA and Trump's allocation (31-16=15) would need to be overcome by Trump gaining a margin of 8 other States for the 16 Electors.

Trump got 304, Hilliary 227. There were 7 Electoral Votes for Write-Ins, not Johnson or Stein. Trump won 30 States, Hilliary was granted 20 States.
By version #2, UT would have given Trump 4, Hilliary 1 and McMullin 1. Texas would have given Johnson 1. Johnson likely would have gotten another 1 in IL. With the previously mentioned CA, that makes at least 6 Electors who would not be slated to vote for Hilliary of Trump. So since Trump had an 83 Vote margin, that deficit of 15 such Electoral Votes from CA wouldn't have changed the outcome, but the race would have been closer - and that is the key to getting that disenfranchised voter that you are talking about.

More from 2016:
TX would have given Trump 19, Hilliary 14.
IL would have given Trump 6, Hilliary 11.
NY T 9, H 17.
PA T 10, H 8.
OH T 9, H 6.
IN T 6, H 2, Johnson 1.
TN T 7

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
We are rebels and will continue to fight against tyranny and oppression of the globalist elites who want to enslave us all.

---

That's beautiful. That's inspiring. I'm ready to grab my musket and powder horn and go shoot some of those globalist elite varmints.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jongsstraw:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
We are rebels and will continue to fight against tyranny and oppression of the globalist elites who want to enslave us all.

---

That's beautiful. That's inspiring. I'm ready to grab my musket and powder horn and go shoot some of those globalist elite varmints.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Any State admitted into the Union is granted the same voice as every other State, whether it be Puerto Rico, Ontario/Quebec, Eastern Alaska, or Northern California. I cannot disagree with any of that, because that is how the Constitution is written, everybody understands those rules, every other Nation can read them, they are not secret or arbitrary, and everybody knows what must be done or not done to accomplish those goals.

---

Well... not exactly.

Unless you're saying that the extra electors granted for each member of congress that a state has was not originally a part of the constitution.

There are nearly 6 million people in Wisconsin. There are barely over 3 million people in Puerto Rico.

Going to a one vote per state would put Wisconsin on the same footing as Puerto Rico once it becomes a state, whereas Wisconsin would have more power with the current system in place.

Quote:

---

I'm not really sure if you are seeing the whole picture regarding the States in the compact.

Even a State as lopsided as CA only gave 61% to Hilliary. Compare that to an actual Electoral Landslide, like Reagan winning every State except 1. If you haven't followed, most States are really fairly close to the 50-50 mark, and are more easily flipped than some folk imagine - especially if given a decade or so to shift.

---

My argument to you here is that I see very clearly the whole picture regarding the states in the compact. I know that it is generally close, at least on a percentage basis.

In California, that small percentage still ended up being millions of Democrat votes, but it's much smaller of course in smaller states.

My whole point is that I can't imagine it would be too hard to get enough Republicans to vote to tip that balance the other way to make Republicans win the popular vote overall in the states that would make up the Compact and a 270+ majority of electors, simply by heavily advertising that their vote for President finally matters... especially in states that NEVER go that way, such as California.

Couple this with the fact that in 2020, we're most likely going to see an old white man running against Trump in the form of Joe Biden, and I think a lot of the Democrats that went out and voted in 2016 are going to stay home or write a protest vote and I don't think this Compact is going to work out at all like the proponents of it think it will.

Quote:

---

However, if you are interested in spurring the disenfranchised citizen of these Liberal bastions to come out and vote, there is one solution for you to consider.

Maine and Nebraska seem to be doing it. The 2 Electors allotted to the Senate Seats are selected from the winner of the whole Statewide vote tally. But each of the Electors representing the individual Congressional Districts are selected based upon which candidate/Party won the majority within that CD. Assuming I understand that correctly.
Not only would that spur voters to get out and show their strength (CA has 14 GOP Representatives, and could presumably vote in that many Electors, plus perhaps more if Citizens thought their Vote might matter, not being Disenfranchised by all of the Illegal Alien Voters, Fraudulent Voters, and other Democrat cheating practices from LA and San Fran), but this could spur more enthusiastic 3rd Party challenges.
In the past 30 years, I do believe other Parties have won entire Congressional Districts in various States, and would have affected the Electoral College if they had those Electors.

Also, Candidates would be far more interested to visit these locales. Trump might wish to visit a strong GOP place like Orange County CA for donation cash, but he might then detour to hotly contested Congressional Districts which he has a chance of swinging his way, if it meant another EV. As it is now, there is no reason for anybody of the Dems or GOP to visit these places - they won't change the Elector count from that State, and those places don't really generate as much campaign funding as Hollywood or Orange County. Candidates from other Parties do have ample reason to visit such locations which are ignored by the 2 major Parties.

I think I have heard of another system. This one allocates Electors as a percentage of the vote results.
Let's say CA has 52 Electors. 2 representing the Senators would be allocated to the Party which won the majority of the whole State, like now. Then the remaining 50 would be split up based upon the vote. Last time, Hilliary got 61.7% of the CA vote, Trump got 31.6%, Johnson got 3.37%, and Stein got 1.96%. Stein would round up to get 1 Elector, Johnson would round up to get 2 Electors, Hilliary would get at least 31 Electors, Trump would get at least 16 Electors, and that totals 50. If that did not add up to 50, then the remaining Electors would be allocated however the Law was written (or, really, interpreted).

---

I actually thought of suggesting this a few days ago, but when I re-read the post I opted not to post it...

Wouldn't that essentially be the same as awarding the Presidency to the winner of the popular vote?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

---