The GOP won the popular vote!
This is a threat to democracy!
This is a threat to democracy!
Where’s The “Popular Vote” Thread?
- Thread starter MyTeamIsOnTheFloor
- Start date
I think it got merged with the Gerrymander thread, but you'll have to ask Goat. I don't know how to do that ninja merging threads thing he does.
The threat to Democracy is making the popular vote the rule of law.
Why do you think that is the case?
From Stanford Magazine (and this article is from 2016. Since then, another Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton has lost the election after a significant popular vote win):
There are three basic arguments in favor of the system the framers of the Constitution gave us, with little sense of how it would actually work. The first is easily dismissed. Presidential electors are not more qualified than other citizens to determine who should head the government. They are simply party loyalists who do not deliberate about anything more than where to eat lunch.
A second argument holds less populous states deserve the further electoral weight they gain through the “senatorial bump” giving each state two electors, because their minority status entitles them to additional political protection. But the real interests of small-state voters are never determined by the relative size of the population of their states. If, say, environmental sustainability or abortion or the Second Amendment is your dominant concern, it does not matter whether you live in Wyoming or California, Pennsylvania or Delaware. The size of a state does not affect our real political preferences, even though the Electoral College system imagines that it does.
Third, defenders of the Electoral College also claim that it supports the underlying value of federalism. Having the states play an autonomous role in presidential elections, it is said, reinforces the division of governing authority between the nation and the states. But explaining exactly how it does this remains a mystery. Having a state-based system for electing both houses of Congress should be adequate to that task. Presidential elections have little if anything to do with the subject, even when some candidates claim to be “running against Washington.”
I don't even need to read your post to answer. I don't trust the majority. I know the arguments, but the mob scares the hell out of me. I saw a picture today of suspect Russian collaborators tied to a pole. Those images trouble me. The mob lynch's people.Why do you think that is the case?
From Stanford Magazine (and this article is from 2016. Since then, another Presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton has lost the election after a significant popular vote win):
There are three basic arguments in favor of the system the framers of the Constitution gave us, with little sense of how it would actually work. The first is easily dismissed. Presidential electors are not more qualified than other citizens to determine who should head the government. They are simply party loyalists who do not deliberate about anything more than where to eat lunch.
A second argument holds less populous states deserve the further electoral weight they gain through the “senatorial bump” giving each state two electors, because their minority status entitles them to additional political protection. But the real interests of small-state voters are never determined by the relative size of the population of their states. If, say, environmental sustainability or abortion or the Second Amendment is your dominant concern, it does not matter whether you live in Wyoming or California, Pennsylvania or Delaware. The size of a state does not affect our real political preferences, even though the Electoral College system imagines that it does.
Third, defenders of the Electoral College also claim that it supports the underlying value of federalism. Having the states play an autonomous role in presidential elections, it is said, reinforces the division of governing authority between the nation and the states. But explaining exactly how it does this remains a mystery. Having a state-based system for electing both houses of Congress should be adequate to that task. Presidential elections have little if anything to do with the subject, even when some candidates claim to be “running against Washington.”
Forgive my words, The threat to democracy should say the threat to the Republic is making the popular vote the rule of law.
Okay, but that’s exactly the argument against the electoral college. Trump actually was trying to switch up electors after he lost. That is a fact. And that is the very essence of mob rule. A coup in Myanmar or Thailand is usually by the army. In those cases, a very small minority overthrows the government.
As General Milley said, “We’re the guys with the guns.” But in Miley’s case, he was talking about protecting the US Constitution, not a wanna be Putin.
The US population, in general, is not a mob. To disenfranchise millions of voters because they happen to live in a solid red or blue state is very close to mob rule. How many times do you hear people’s excuses for not voting as I live in Massachusetts, my vote doesn’t matter. Or in Wyoming as the red example. They’re right.
Everyone’s vote should count.
Spoken like a true Democrat that thinks people occupying 10% of the country are capable of ruling over the other 90%
You sound like Massa on the plantation. I really have no clue what you were are attempting to say. Again Dems that dont like the rules so they want to change them
So, let’s say your job at the sewage treatment plant was transferred from Booger Holler, TN to Shithole, CA? You wouldn’t want your vote to count towards who is president?
There was another video where Russian soldiers caught a mercenary from Russia’s Wagner Group who switched sides to fight with Ukraine. They taped his head to a brick wall and executed him by smashing his head with a sledgehammer.
RIP Gallagher.
There is a difference in trying to change the rules and trying to circumvent them illegally, which is what Orange Jesus was trying to do. He needs to be wearing a suit that matches his skin tone. Long Live Liz.....would love to see her win the electoral college
It does. We have 50 elections for President. Every vote counts in every state. The winner of the popular vote in each state decides who the state's electors in the Electoral College are pledged to.
In a best 3 out of 5 series I won game one 3 to 2, I won game two 7-3, you won game three 13-3, you won game four 2 to 1, and I won the deciding game 5 to 3. You scored more runs but I won more games. You don't get to take the series. California is the 13 to 3 game. You don't win the Presidency by running up the score in one state that is generally out of step with most of the rest of the country.
That depends on how you define "the rest of the country," and could be turned around to say you shouldn't win the Presidency by winning a bunch of states with minimal electoral votes when most of the people who live in the country vote for the opponent. But as for now, the rules are the rules.
California is the farthest left of the left. They are out of step with how the majority of the country is run.
As to the rest, you want a tyrrany of the majority. There is a reason that the country was set up the way it was. A pure democracy is a road to ruin.
We had a whole thread on this a few months ago. Ensuring the slave-holding states signed the Constitution is why the electoral college was created.
Every vote does count. WTF are you talking about?
I think you need to go back and learn he history of Dims trying to change electors before you bring out the Orange Man Bad canard.
I should know better than to try to be rational with cult members....sound reasoning never works.
The slavery issue was an economic discussion at the time and for the sake of what the framers were doing. It obviously has its moral component, particularly for us in this day and age, however the economic and political power discussion that was underlying that institution still remains. Slavery is gone but the differences in the states remains.
If our leadership is totally to be decided by a (slim) majority based on the popular vote, such that the majority of the levers of power will remain in the hands of the few states with larger populations, then the political minority has no reason to remain in such a confederation.
You know exactly my point about voting in Alabama, Illinois, Massachusetts, Mississippi, etc. Sure your vote counts, but if the result is essentially predetermined, people are leas likely to vote. You know this, so stop being disingenuous.
Elections aren’t baseball series. That’s an infantile comparison. There is a reason all the money pours into about 7 swing states in Presidential elections, and the candidates spend 90% of their time in those states. Why should the voters of Virginia be more important than the population of Idaho or North Dakota?
Last edited:
I suspect the Senators from the square states would object to the suggestion they have no power.
But you're right, somebody's ox gets gored either way. That tends to preserve the status quo. But if the trend toward the popular vote winner losing the Presidential election continues (post-Trump), this argument will get a lot more play in the future.
There will always be areas where the money will pour in. If you get rid of "swing" states, then all the money will go to a few population centers. And "swing" states tend to change. Florida and Ohio were swing states just a few elections ago. California birthed Ronald Reagan.
You want the rules changed because you feel it will benefit you more often than not based on the here and now.
Here is one for you, I want EV votes divided like Nebraska does and that would be bad for Ds.
What If All States Split Their Electoral Votes? - Electoral Vote Map
Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes instead of the winner-take-all system. What would happen if the other 48 states did the same?
electoralvotemap.com
As the Stanford article discusses the population center excuse holds no water, and here and now, my guy is in office after a blowout election.
You want the rules to stay status quo because you feel that in the future, you will still be able to maintain power with elections decided with the “loser” actually winning with 10,000,000 less votes.
Why not go all the way and just make it a popular vote election, then? The Electoral College is what is “rigging the election” in reality.Here is one for you, I want EV votes divided like Nebraska does and that would be bad for Ds.
What If All States Split Their Electoral Votes? - Electoral Vote Map
Maine and Nebraska split their electoral votes instead of the winner-take-all system. What would happen if the other 48 states did the same?
It's difficult for you to be rational when you don't know anything about history.
I have no issue with eliminating the EC, but at the moment it falls into the unicorn spectrum.
I am sick and tired of 90% of America being ignored every 4 years. There are about 5 at play states, that is it. No one else's vote matters. They might visit one of the other states if there are money bundlers suggesting the tree can be shaken, but then it is a fly in, private event, fly out.
People think there vote doesn't matter because it doesn't. I see two ways to address that, one cannot happen.
The Popular Vote Compact is a good attempt and is getting close BUT I suspect this court would strike it down.
Yeah, that pesky Constitution.
You wouldn't be suggesting destroying democracy, would you?
Where the hell did I say that? The states have the right to change how they allocate votes, Maine and Nebraska have done so. It INCREASES democracy by making candidates go out and face more people.
You said " BUT I suspect this court would strike it down".
You know the court rules according to the Constitution, right?
The Electoral College is another check and balance against consolidated power.
Coach stays.
Coach stays.
It was a serious question. You can change it with a Constitutional amendment. It's only way.
You're welcome.
So the US Supreme Court always has ruled in perfect alignment to the Constitution, is that your point?
There are good questions about the compact. The simple truth is no where in the Constitution does the concept of a multi-state compact appear. So any court ruling, for or against, involves trading between the lines and then wildly guessing based on pre-conceived ideas.
Show me where it says anything about a state legislature deciding to award votes based on popular vote?
Why do you always put words in my mouth? Just to argue?
I said courts rule according to the Constitution. Why would you argue against that?
Where in the Constitution is a multi state compact awarding votes by popular vote listed?
