REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Boo Hoo... No Popular Vote For You

POSTED BY: 6IXSTRINGJACK
UPDATED: Friday, June 21, 2019 19:59
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 707
PAGE 1 of 1

Thursday, June 6, 2019 9:20 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Nevada governor (a Democrat) rejects effort to join popular vote compact

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/30/politics/nevada-popular-vote-veto-sisol
ak/index.html




I'm sure when it comes to the popular vote compact, Republican lawmakers are doing one of these right now...






Take a look at the breakdown of the states that have already passed it.

http://www.projectvote.org/wp-content/uploads/NPVIC-MAP.pdf


Most of these states are ALWAYS Democrat. What happens to a large portion of voters that live in a state that always votes the other way than they would by a huge enough margin not to even bother going to the poll stations?

That's right. They sit their fat asses on their couch and binge on Netflix instead.


But what happens if only 10% of the population of California went out and votes Republican because all of the sudden their vote means something now? That's an extra 3 1/2 million votes, which would have been enough to essentially tie up the popular vote against Hillary in 2016.


Since it seems that pretty much the only states that are signing up for this legislation are heavy Democrat states, I think it will be hilarious when this backfires and a Republican gets voted in for President with 538 electoral votes.

Good on Governor Sisolak for maintaining agency for the state of Nevada.

Pretty brave move in 2019. My heart goes out to him and his family for all of the insults and death threats that they are no doubt receiving on social media.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 6, 2019 10:25 AM

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.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 6, 2019 7:59 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


A popular vote for each State in The Republic would make things easier.

Whomever wins the popular vote in each State gets that State's Vote. With Each State getting 1 Vote, there would be a total of 50 Votes. CA gets 1 Vote, RI gets 1 Vote. Pretty simple, it seems. I can endorse that idea.

The Constitution continues to grant all Election procedures to the States. It was only the Great Compromise which created the Electoral College. So if CA chooses to forfeit it's 53 Electoral Votes in exchange for it's 1 State of The Republic Vote, that seems fair. That's why we live in a Republic of States, a Union of States, a Federation of States.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 8, 2019 8:54 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


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.




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. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, June 9, 2019 8:17 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


I wonder if memegeneratior.net is going to come back.

I noticed yesterday that the picture I posted in the first link was not working and tried to load the link in another tab which timed out. I then tried other pictures from Google images linked to that site and they didn't work either.

Today when trying to load any of them, I get a screen with "Server Error in '/' Application." on top, a ton of IP gibberish and the following line halfway down:

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.



I wonder if Vox got memegenerator.net shut down. They've been on a tear recently trying to censor everything in existence.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 10, 2019 12:54 PM

REAVERFAN


The EC is a relic we should have gotten rid of 100 years ago.

It does precisely what it was supposed to prevent.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 10, 2019 8:14 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


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.



It also prevents precisely what it was supposed to prevent at the same time.

The popular vote isn't an answer. Come up with a reasonable one, because my mind is open to an evolution on the concept of the electoral college.




By the way... what are your thoughts on what I said about the popular vote compact. Do you see how Democrat voting states are potentially shooting themselves in the face by passing this legislation on a state by state basis?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, June 10, 2019 8:22 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


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.



I'm not so sure that this is true.

I don't know enough details to argue it, but I do know that there are certain states who have electors who behave in a much different fashion than most other states do.

This leads me to believe that a state itself determines exactly how their electors will vote, based off of how many people and/or how many districts vote one way or another.

I don't see any reason why a state couldn't vote to join with other states and pool their electors with other states if that choice was made in a legal way that is binding.


Although, I might be wrong about that too. The reason I say this is because... well... why don't the states who have joined the compact just go ahead and start doing it right now, even though they're nowhere close to the 270+ votes that would ensure the popular vote would determine the election?

I can only think of two answers to that question.

1. It's not actually legal. At least not yet. And they don't want to try to make a fight to legalize it until they have a good majority on board.

2. Or, they don't want the scenario I outlined above to come to pass early and see an election where California and Illinois are forced to vote for Republicans... This would destroy any future arguments for a popular vote for generations if it were to happen before everything was codified.



One question I do have about all of this... Can a state back out of the Popular Vote Compact at any time or are they forced to stick with it after they joined?

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 11, 2019 6:20 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.

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:

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. :)

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.

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.

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).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 11, 2019 7:17 PM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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.



It does precisely what it was meant to do.

Learn your god damn US history before you post some idiotic crap like this.

Hell, even under 1 person 1 vote, we have corrupt political leaders ( Brexit ) who refuse to acknowledge the will of the people and decide to ignore votes they don't like and threaten to call for another vote ( and possibly another ) until the correct choice is made.

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


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, June 11, 2019 11:57 PM

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.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 12, 2019 7:40 AM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


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:

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.

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. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 12, 2019 8:17 PM

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, H 2.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, June 12, 2019 8:56 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


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. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 13, 2019 5:52 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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. :)

Why is there a North Carolina and a South Carolina?

This is not The United Persons of America.

This is The United States of America.

The persons did not negotiate The Constitution to be represented. The States did. The States need to be represented.
Rhode Island, less than 1/3 the size of Los Angeles County, is a State, as admitted to to Union.
Los Angeles County is not a State, so therefore does not rate representation at the State to Federal Level.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 13, 2019 7:13 PM

JONGSSTRAW


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?


NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 13, 2019 9:49 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


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





Again, I'm going to ask how this is really any different than a flat out popular vote.

The amount of electors a state has directly correlates with the population of a state by census results.

It would seem to me that by doing it this way you're just instituting a popular vote by proxy.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, June 13, 2019 9:58 PM

1KIKI

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.


The states get to run their electors.

Most states are 'winner take all'. https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/faq.html "The District of Columbia and 48 states have a winner-takes-all rule for the Electoral College. In these States, whichever candidate receives a majority of the popular vote, or a plurality of the popular vote (less than 50 percent but more than any other candidate), takes all of the state's Electoral votes."

Some states are proportional. ibid "Only two states, Nebraska and Maine, do not follow the winner-takes-all rule. In those states, there could be a split of Electoral votes among candidates through the state's system for proportional allocation of votes."

The number of electors per state gives a slight edge to lower-population states. ibid "The Electoral College consists of 538 electors. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the President. Your state's entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators."

And some states don't hold their electors to following the popular vote. http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=967 "There is no federal law that requires electors to vote as they have pledged, but 29 states and the District of Columbia have legal control over how their electors vote in the Electoral College. This means their electors are bound by state law and/or by state or party pledge to cast their vote for the candidate that wins the statewide popular vote. At the same time, this also means that there are 21 states in the union that have no requirements of, or legal control over, their electors. Therefore, despite the outcome of a state’s popular vote, the state’s electors are ultimately free to vote in whatever manner they please, including an abstention, with no legal repercussions."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, June 15, 2019 9:34 AM

AURAPTOR

America loves a winner!


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.



I aim to misbehave.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 21, 2019 5:41 PM

JEWELSTAITEFAN


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.

I was thinking "globalist" could be replaced with "Alliance."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 21, 2019 5:47 PM

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.
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. :)

There is a reason all of those heavily Liberal States have not adopted the same policy of Elector Allocation as NE and ME. It is not advantageous to them, they would lose more oft.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, June 21, 2019 7:59 PM

6IXSTRINGJACK

[/i]


Things change. I know you know this. I don't understand how you seem to think that what you are saying today will hold any relevance 20, 50, 100 years from now.

Do Right, Be Right. :)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Impeachment Investigation Is Underway, Judiciary Committee Says
Wed, November 20, 2019 20:37 - 1002 posts
Dow @ 20K. Time to jump off!
Wed, November 20, 2019 20:05 - 957 posts
10 times the intel community violated the trust of US citizens, lawmakers and allies
Wed, November 20, 2019 19:45 - 8 posts
We got 6 people having 4 conversations in 1 sentence, and you just told me this is where you got your clear understanding...
Wed, November 20, 2019 19:01 - 6 posts
FACTS
Wed, November 20, 2019 17:46 - 169 posts
Watch Impeachment Inquiry Live
Wed, November 20, 2019 17:15 - 37 posts
Countdown Clock to Trumps impeachment " STARTS"
Wed, November 20, 2019 12:09 - 3241 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!!!
Wed, November 20, 2019 04:21 - 3293 posts
I was looking to see if embassies are highly populated by the CIA, and came across this really quirky article about academics being recruited by the 'Agency'.
Wed, November 20, 2019 04:00 - 4 posts
Who Is Running In 2020?
Tue, November 19, 2019 19:42 - 326 posts
The secret plot to depose Trump
Tue, November 19, 2019 19:18 - 252 posts
The death of the dollar?
Tue, November 19, 2019 18:07 - 40 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL