Sean

National Popular Vote

Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, warbird said:

Takes just one state to withhold the count and the NPV cannot be ascertained. :lol:

RIght. Imagine!

You do realize that the EC votes are a few weeks after the popular election. No, scratch that. Of course you don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Raz'r said:

I think it would bring the national platforms, both of them, to the middle as they focus on, gasp, what the people actually want.

Ya know what?  I think you're right about that.  If it unfortunately comes to be?  Let's hope that this is one of the things that happens. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When some idiot in CA votes for Shitstain in the general but CA ignores him and his idiot friends and delivers all of its EC votes for Hillary, is CA violating the rights of the idiots?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

When some idiot in CA votes for Shitstain in the general but CA ignores him and his idiot friends and delivers all of its EC votes for Hillary, is CA violating the rights of the idiots?

Nope.  BUT - what would you think if a 49/51% popular vote decision came down contrary to the expressed intent of a clear majority of the CA voters? Would you still support the NPV assigning ALL of CA's Electoral Votes to the candidate that overwhelmingly lost in CA?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Nope.  BUT - what would you think if a 49/51% popular vote decision came down contrary to the expressed intent of a clear majority of the CA voters? Would you still support the NPV assigning ALL of CA's Electoral Votes to the candidate that overwhelmingly lost in CA?   

I see. So you’re saying that a state doesn’t violate an individual’s rahts by bundling the result according to the state result but that same state would violate them individual  rahts by bundling them according to the national results.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

I see. So you’re saying that a state doesn’t violate an individual’s rahts by bundling the result according to the state result but that same state would violate them individual  rahts by bundling them according to the national results.

Yup - state boundaries matter, the priorities within states differ and matter.  IMHO - the only appropriate change is to proportionally assign EC votes according to the State's popular vote.  NPV moves too much influence to places with high population densities at the cost of reduced influence and exposure of the places with lower population densities, and that's not appropriate.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Nope.  BUT - what would you think if a 49/51% popular vote decision came down contrary to the expressed intent of a clear majority of the CA voters? Would you still support the NPV assigning ALL of CA's Electoral Votes to the candidate that overwhelmingly lost in CA?   

If that was the result of the popular vote, of course.

Isn't that the point?  Will of the people and all that happy horseshit?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Yup - state boundaries matter, the priorities within states differ and matter.  IMHO - the only appropriate change is to proportionally assign EC votes according to the State's popular vote.  NPV moves too much influence to places with high population densities at the cost of reduced influence and exposure of the places with lower population densities, and that's not appropriate.  

 

because a person in Wyoming is 5 times more worthy of selecting the president than someone in Fresno.  Right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

because a person in Wyoming is 5 times more worthy of selecting the president than someone in Fresno.  Right.

No - by virtue of the population based assignment of EC votes,  the WY resident needs 5X more protection for WY's legislative priorities. .  I thought you were all about "leveling the playing field" so that the people who were under-represented could compete equally?    Not now? 

We're not going to agree on this, and I'm ok with that.  The NPV is the wrong implementation of a worthy intention. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No - by virtue of the population based assignment of EC votes,  the WY resident needs 5X more protection for WY's legislative priorities. .  I thought you were all about "leveling the playing field" so that the people who were under-represented could compete equally?    Not now? 

We're not going to agree on this, and I'm ok with that.  The NPV is the wrong implementation of a worthy intention. 

Their legislative priorities are protected by the legislature.

Since we don’t have slavery, and don’t expect intelligent and moderate white men to choose the president (the reasons for the EC), it’s no longer necessary.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Yup - state boundaries matter, the priorities within states differ and matter.  IMHO - the only appropriate change is to proportionally assign EC votes according to the State's popular vote.  NPV moves too much influence to places with high population densities at the cost of reduced influence and exposure of the places with lower population densities, and that's not appropriate.  

This certainly isn’t in the Big C but no matter. Can you state a test/principle so that we’d know whether a state is violatin’ an individual’s rahts when they do this here bundling?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Olsonist said:

This certainly isn’t in the Big C but no matter. Can you state a test/principle so that we’d know whether a state is violatin’ an individual’s rahts when they do this here bundling?

I don't think that I ever asserted such, did I?  BTW - what's with the southern accent ad colloquial countrified speech?  Are you trying harder for acceptability? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/8/2019 at 7:20 AM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Help me understand how this does anything except to negate the will of the people of Delaware? 

Will of the people rather than rahts. My apologies.

So you’re saying that a legislature passing NPV negates the will of the people and if the same legislature bundles that’s ok?

Is a legislature a representation of the people’s will?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No - by virtue of the population based assignment of EC votes,  the WY resident needs 5X more protection for WY's legislative priorities. .  I thought you were all about "leveling the playing field" so that the people who were under-represented could compete equally?    Not now? 

We're not going to agree on this, and I'm ok with that.  The NPV is the wrong implementation of a worthy intention. 

Do you really think that Wyoming is garnering support for their “legislative priorities” on account or their 3 electors? I want some of whatever your smoking. 

As to your second point, would you agree that the chances of Wyoming apportioning their 3 electoral votes are somewhere between vanishingly small and none? Constitutional amendment to force it? Laughable. This reality is the reason that NVP effort exists. Warts and all.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He's really hung up on States as a Voter.

Like Tom's Corporate Citizens, in AGuys world "States" vote for the "States" interest.

 

But he misses the point entirely. Here's what the guys who wrote the rules actually thought. Maybe AGITC could take a look, and see if he agrees with the original need? And if the EC is actually fulfilling it's charter? I bet they even let women be EC voters now!
 

 

As Alexander Hamilton writes in “The Federalist Papers,” the Constitution is designed to ensure “that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications.” The point of the Electoral College is to preserve “the sense of the people,” while at the same time ensuring that a president is chosen “by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Will of the people rather than rahts. My apologies.

So you’re saying that a legislature passing NPV negates the will of the people and if the same legislature bundles that’s ok?

Is a legislature a representation of the people’s will?

The state legislature is more closely controlled by the residents of the state, and is supposed to represent the interest of those residents.  CA doesn't have a legislative interest or responsibility to advocate for the people of any state except CA, does it?    The biggest factor that impacts the efficacy of advocacy is influence.  From what is influence as it pertains to federal legislation derived?  From the ability to exert pressure by promising or opposing support of a presidential candidate.  If the state doesn't matter by virtue of it no longer having control of how its electoral votes are cast, then wouldn't you agree that that's a significant reduction in that state's influence?  

As to bundling - no, I don't think that "winner take all" *IS* OK, but, when the state does it for their own votes, they aren't abdicating their influence to a larger collective. 

You're tryin' pretty hard with the colloquial speech - keep at it, ya might find that it helps. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

The state legislature is more closely controlled by the residents of the state, and is supposed to represent the interest of those residents.  CA doesn't have a legislative interest or responsibility to advocate for the people of any state except CA, does it?    The biggest factor that impacts the efficacy of advocacy is influence.  From what is influence as it pertains to federal legislation derived?  From the ability to exert pressure by promising or opposing support of a presidential candidate.  If the state doesn't matter by virtue of it no longer having control of how its electoral votes are cast, then wouldn't you agree that that's a significant reduction in that state's influence?  

As to bundling - no, I don't think that "winner take all" *IS* OK, but, when the state does it for their own votes, they aren't abdicating their influence to a larger collective. 

You're tryin' pretty hard with the colloquial speech - keep at it, ya might find that it helps. 

ok, I wasn't too clear. I was thinking of the state's representation in the national congress. But the point still stands - THAT is who represents the state. Not the Prez.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/8/2019 at 9:15 AM, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Currently make up. It's been <60 years of 50. Why not add a couple more states? DC, Puerto Rico, both are more populated and prosperous than loser Wyoming.

Regardless, each state is a separate entity. 35, 50, 56, what ever. FUCK OFF if you think one is more special than the next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, warbird said:

Regardless, each state is a separate entity. 35, 50, 56, what ever. FUCK OFF if you think one is more special than the next.

We aren't saying that one is more special than the next. We're just saying that loser Wyoming isn't special at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, warbird said:

Regardless, each state is a separate entity. 35, 50, 56, what ever. FUCK OFF if you think one is more special than the next.

Well the 51st is more special. Since 1961 It gets 3 votes for president but still no voting representation in congress. Taxation without representation only matters to Republicans sometimes - which is why one of Ws first acts was to strip the plates from the limo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

We aren't saying that one is more special than the next. We're just saying that loser Wyoming isn't special at all.

Except for skiing, hiking, fishing, hunting,summer sports, winter sports and statehood, no, they are not special. Deny statehood and they might like to pair with Alberta. You fucking lefty girlie boys who can't get over the 16 elections should seek out counseling from someone who gives a fuck about your pansy hurt feelings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2019 at 9:44 AM, Bent Sailor said:
On 5/8/2019 at 11:47 PM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Y'all have fun - I'm done with this topic.

Wow you sure were done with this topic. Now blame someone else for your fuckup:rolleyes:

When you fuck up, you really like to keep digging don't ya?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, warbird said:

Except for skiing, hiking, fishing, hunting,summer sports, winter sports and statehood, no, they are not special. Deny statehood and they might like to pair with Alberta. You fucking lefty girlie boys who can't get over the 16 elections should seek out counseling from someone who gives a fuck about your pansy hurt feelings.

Maybe the snowflakes should secede if they can't live without 5X the voting power of another citizen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, warbird said:

Except for skiing, hiking, fishing, hunting,summer sports, winter sports and statehood, no, they are not special. Deny statehood and they might like to pair with Alberta. You fucking lefty girlie boys who can't get over the 16 elections should seek out counseling from someone who gives a fuck about your pansy hurt feelings.

It's funny you choose Wyoming - the first state in the US to grant women suffrage - as a state to raise your misogynist flag with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It's funny you choose Wyoming - the first state in the US to grant women suffrage - as a state to raise your misogynist flag with.

It's probably the only thing he can raise any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Ishmael said:

Maybe the snowflakes should secede if they can't live without 5X the voting power of another citizen.

Maybe you should fucking move! You dont like the constitution leave..... bye bye cry baby, find a better place.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It's funny you choose Wyoming - the first state in the US to grant women suffrage - as a state to raise your misogynist flag with.

You nuts or what?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, warbird said:

You nuts or what?????

not a big fan of prairie oysters and those are the only nuts you find in wyoming. certainly none on cowboys.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, warbird said:

Maybe you should fucking move! You dont like the constitution leave..... bye bye cry baby, find a better place.....

:lol:

Somebody is seriously not paying attention.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I'm not a big fan of prairie oysters and those are the only nuts you find in wyoming. certainly none on cowboys.

Dicklet, you obviously obsess over the Hilary failure. Get over it. The DOW goes up, the S&P500 goes up, gdp goes up, unemployment goes down, but girlie boy lefty pansies like you will still complain. Would you be happy if GDP went down, the markets tanked and black unemployment reached an all time high?????

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, warbird said:

Dicklet, you obviously obsess over the Hilary failure. Get over it. The DOW goes up, the S&P500 goes up, gdp goes up, unemployment goes down, but girlie boy lefty pansies like you will still complain. Would you be happy if GDP went down, the markets tanked and black unemployment reached an all time high?????

Butterfly, I am sure you loved your democratic republic when Obama was running the executive branch.  He was honest.  You'd rather support an incompetent, racist, misogynistic traitor.  

Love your patriotism, asshole. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, hasher said:

Butterfly, I am sure you loved your democratic republic when Obama was running the executive branch.  He was honest.  You'd rather support an incompetent, racist, misogynistic traitor.  

Love your patriotism, asshole. 

He has no patriotism, only hate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, warbird said:

Dicklet, you obviously obsess over the Hilary failure. Get over it. The DOW goes up, the S&P500 goes up, gdp goes up, unemployment goes down, but girlie boy lefty pansies like you will still complain. Would you be happy if GDP went down, the markets tanked and black unemployment reached an all time high?????

Must be spring in Wisconsin. The snowflakes are melting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, warbird said:

Dicklet, you obviously obsess over the Hilary failure. Get over it. The DOW goes up, the S&P500 goes up, gdp goes up, unemployment goes down, but girlie boy lefty pansies like you will still complain. Would you be happy if GDP went down, the markets tanked and black unemployment reached an all time high?????

cuck say what?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Olsonist said:

We aren't saying that one is more special than the next. We're just saying that loser Wyoming isn't special at all.

And that's my issue with your approach - it's NOT "more special", but, your qualification of it as "loser Wyoming" is what I fear would happen to it were the little influence its Electoral Votes represents were negated by NPV. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

your qualification of it as "loser Wyoming" is what I fear would happen to it were the little influence its Electoral Votes represents were negated by NPV. 

 

imagine how much it'd be without those votes - even more people would flee.D6JsXmjXsAA7ZPD.jpg:large

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

As to bundling - no, I don't think that "winner take all" *IS* OK, but, when the state does it for their own votes, they aren't abdicating their influence to a larger collective. 

If you had a binary choice in, for arguments sake, a 49%/51% presidential election in a given State - winner take all or NPV, which would you prefer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sean said:

If you had a binary choice in, for arguments sake, a 49%/51% presidential election in a given State - winner take all or NPV, which would you prefer?

Good question, Sean - neither choice is what I'd prefer, but, I'd have to say that I'd choose winner take all within the state.  I care more about preserving influence at lower levels than it seems lots of folks here do - and having that difference is OK.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Electoral College doesn't benefit small states. What it does is even dumber.

https://theweek.com/articles/840362/electoral-college-doesnt-benefit-small-states-what-does-even-dumber

Excerpt -

The 2016 candidates spent almost all their time in a handful of states, most of them medium or large. Two-thirds of campaign events happened in just six states — Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan. If we include Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Arizona, then those 12 states account for 96 percent of campaign events.”

“The nine smallest states (including D.C.), meanwhile, got precisely zero attention. Only the tenth-largest, New Hampshire, got any events at all. In total, 25 states (mostly small and medium-sized) got no events whatsoever. And while it’s true the states that got huge attention are mostly on the big side, the very largest states were almost totally ignored as well — California and Texas got one event apiece, and New York none.”

“The reason for this is obvious. Almost every state gives all of its electoral votesto whoever wins the state — allowing candidates to take the votes of strongly partisan states for granted. Indeed, it’s actively foolish to campaign where you are guaranteed to win or lose — only the swing states matter.”

The consensus electoral map shows just seven states currently Toss Ups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Good question, Sean - neither choice is what I'd prefer, but, I'd have to say that I'd choose winner take all within the state.  I care more about preserving influence at lower levels than it seems lots of folks here do - and having that difference is OK.  

 

From the article I linked above -

“And if a Democrat ever wins the presidency while losing the popular vote, it's a safe bet that the Electoral College will be gone in about five minutes.”

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

And that's my issue with your approach - it's NOT "more special", but, your qualification of it as "loser Wyoming" is what I fear would happen to it were the little influence its Electoral Votes represents were negated by NPV. 

 

because those 3 EC votes get Wyoming so much attention. Did you just ignore the fact that 7 states get the vast majority of Prez-level campaigning?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

because those 3 EC votes get Wyoming so much attention. Did you just ignore the fact that 7 states get the vast majority of Prez-level campaigning?

I didn't ignore anything.  Those states who's EC votes are taken for granted are still afforded a voice in the establishment of the legislative agenda ( or not, if they lose).  

NPV will both improve and exacerbate that issue.  For states w/enough votes to count?  They'll get more attention. For states that don't?  My concern is that they'll be afforded even less attention than they currently have.   Y'all keep telling me that I'm mistaken in that - and if I am?  I'm happy to be squared away.  You're gonna have to tell me how that is - so far all I've gotten is "yeah, so what? - states don't matter". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I didn't ignore anything.  Those states who's EC votes are taken for granted are still afforded a voice in the establishment of the legislative agenda ( or not, if they lose).  

NPV will both improve and exacerbate that issue.  For states w/enough votes to count?  They'll get more attention. For states that don't?  My concern is that they'll be afforded even less attention than they currently have.   Y'all keep telling me that I'm mistaken in that - and if I am?  I'm happy to be squared away.  You're gonna have to tell me how that is - so far all I've gotten is "yeah, so what? - states don't matter". 

Nope, that's a clear misunderstanding. Prez candidates will be able to avoid "state" campaigning and will broaden their message to gather the largest number of votes.

And how is the Prez vote driving legislative agendas? That makes no sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sean said:

From the article I linked above -

“And if a Democrat ever wins the presidency while losing the popular vote, it's a safe bet that the Electoral College will be gone in about five minutes.”

I guess the author of the piece doesn't understand how the constitution is amended.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Raz'r said:

Nope, that's a clear misunderstanding. Prez candidates will be able to avoid "state" campaigning and will broaden their message to gather the largest number of votes.

 And how is the Prez vote driving legislative agendas? That makes no sense.

Which proves my point.   How are federal resources allocated - to population centers, or to states?  How are committee memberships/chairmanships awarded - to population centers, or to representatives of states?  How is influence created/consumed? By creating collections of representatives for support or opposition to a platform.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Which proves my point.   How are federal resources allocated - to population centers, or to states? 

Does the president allocate resources?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Which proves my point.   How are federal resources allocated - to population centers, or to states?  How are committee memberships/chairmanships awarded - to population centers, or to representatives of states?  How is influence created/consumed? By creating collections of representatives for support or opposition to a platform.   

You’ve got a compelling argument for the allocation of legislative power. No issues here. Not sure how that applies to the one, Nationally elected office.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

You’ve got a compelling argument for the allocation of legislative power. No issues here. Not sure how that applies to the one, Nationally elected office.

I've spelled it out for y'all 6 ways from Sunday - I don't think I am interested in doing anything more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I've spelled it out for y'all 6 ways from Sunday - I don't think I am interested in doing anything more.

Your arguments are not compelling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

Your arguments are not compelling. 

Mine are fine - you're just not willing to concede that I have a point, because you're more interested in rectifying that awful terrible rotten never no good EC to personal vote discrepancy between CA and the awful oppressors in Wyoming who personally thwarted your attempts to appoint your anointed one to the WH in the last election.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Mine are fine - you're just not willing to concede that I have a point, because you're more interested in rectifying that awful terrible rotten never no good EC to personal vote discrepancy between CA and the awful oppressors in Wyoming who personally thwarted your attempts to appoint your anointed one to the WH in the last election.  

Nope, you do not have a point. 1P1V for the one national office is the way to go.

Wishing for the days of 3/5ths humans, white-male-only voting and the wisdom of the EC is just white-washing history.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Mine are fine - you're just not willing to concede that I have a point, because you're more interested in rectifying that awful terrible rotten never no good EC to personal vote discrepancy between CA and the awful oppressors in Wyoming who personally thwarted your attempts to appoint your anointed one to the WH in the last election.  

Ches, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that you agree that the current system is lacking and needs to be corrected to eliminate “winner take all” allocation. In theory, it’s a compromise solution I could live with. However, advocating for this is tantamount to advocating for no change at all.

You admit that you would rather leave things as they are than pursuing the only proposal I know of that would “enfranchise” all voters, the NPV. I think you’re right about one thing, you’re wasting your time and effort on the topic if you’re as dug in as you appear to be.

edit to add - “perfect is the enemy of good”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Nope, you do not have a point. 1P1V for the one national office is the way to go.

Wishing for the days of 3/5ths humans, white-male-only voting and the wisdom of the EC is just white-washing history.

That you and several of your left-leaning sycophants disagree doesn't negate that I have a point.  In terms of value per person?  Considering the quality of thought - I personally think the 1:5 ratio you currently enjoy is a bit generous. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sean said:

Ches, correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems to me that you agree that the current system is lacking and needs to be corrected to eliminate “winner take all” allocation. In theory, it’s a compromise solution I could live with. However, advocating for this is tantamount to advocating for no change at all.

You admit that you would rather leave things as they are than pursuing the only proposal I know of that would “enfranchise” all voters, the NPV. I think you’re right about one thing, you’re wasting your time and effort on the topic if you’re as dug in as you appear to be.

I am that dug in - I think that the NPV will create situations that are harmful, while not generating enough benefit to counter its harmful effects.   I would rather have NO change, than to accept a change that I think will cause harm, while we work towards the change that we all agree is a better solution.   You, O, Flash?  y'all are ready to toss the baby out with the bathwater because you "don't think that states matter".   I disagree - and don't want to see entire blocks of voters disenfranchised.  

The reluctance to pursue a real solution makes me question the motivation of those who are pushing for a change NOW - do they really want to address an inequity, or do they want to create a different inequity in the hops of achieving a personal political objective?   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I am that dug in - I think that the NPV will create situations that are harmful, while not generating enough benefit to counter its harmful effects.   I would rather have NO change, than to accept a change that I think will cause harm, while we work towards the change that we all agree is a better solution.   You, O, Flash?  y'all are ready to toss the baby out with the bathwater because you "don't think that states matter".   I disagree - and don't want to see entire blocks of voters disenfranchised.  

The reluctance to pursue a real solution makes me question the motivation of those who are pushing for a change NOW - do they really want to address an inequity, or do they want to create a different inequity in the hops of achieving a personal political objective?   

I am also that dug in. The original reasoning for the EC, that we needed moderate, thoughtful educated men to tamp down the passions of the electorate never worked, and frankly, is condescending to the modern american voter. 

We now have universal suffrage

Black men are just people, not 3/5th

Women are actually people, not 0

 

The whole POINT of the EC is invalid.

 

So - what to do. Pretend you want to change? hope for perfection? Or make a step. 

 

I'll take the step each and every time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

I am also that dug in. The original reasoning for the EC, that we needed moderate, thoughtful educated men to tamp down the passions of the electorate never worked, and frankly, is condescending to the modern american voter. 

We now have universal suffrage

Black men are just people, not 3/5th

Women are actually people, not 0

 

The whole POINT of the EC is invalid.

 

So - what to do. Pretend you want to change? hope for perfection? Or make a step. 

 

I'll take the step each and every time.

I understand - and up until the point that you advocate for THIS step - I agree.  Let me use an analogy - let's say you had eczema on your left arm.  There's a great new cure - but, that cure might cost you your pointer finger on that hand. Do you accept that risk and try the cure, or keep dealing with the eczema the best you can until a cure comes that doesn't cost you a finger? 

The loss of federal influence that I think would befall the less populated states is your finger in this comparison, and I don't think that the EC problems are severe enough to warrant acceptance of that risk.  

I don't think we misunderstand each other at all - I just think we disagree w/r/t accepting the problems that will come with the NPV.   Some think states don't matter - I do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I understand - and up until the point that you advocate for THIS step - I agree.  Let me use an analogy - let's say you had eczema on your left arm.  There's a great new cure - but, that cure might cost you your pointer finger on that hand. Do you accept that risk and try the cure, or keep dealing with the eczema the best you can until a cure comes that doesn't cost you a finger? 

The loss of federal influence that I think would befall the less populated states is your finger in this comparison, and I don't think that the EC problems are severe enough to warrant acceptance of that risk.  

I don't think we misunderstand each other at all - I just think we disagree w/r/t accepting the problems that will come with the NPV.   Some think states don't matter - I do. 

Why do you continue to make up a reason for the EC that 1) didn't exist AS a reason for the EC  and 2) from all we can tell, has nothing to do we actual influence, which is that only 7 states with outcomes that are up-for-grabs actually count in national elections?

In the current system, that means that 43 states "don't matter"
 

Your cure is worse than the disease. It's not eczema, it's leprosy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I’m certain that if the Founding Fathers could have foreseen the mess that we’ve made of the electoral process, they wouldn’t have written Article 2 the way they did.

9 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I disagree - and don't want to see entire blocks of voters disenfranchised.  

 The reluctance to pursue a real solution makes me question the motivation of those who are pushing for a change NOW

FFS Ches, the whole reason for the NPV proposal is because entire blocks of voters are disenfranchised by the current system.

If by “real solution” you mean a Constitutional amendment, you’re being disingenuous. You know as well as I that it won’t happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Sean said:

I’m certain that if the Founding Fathers could have foreseen the mess that we’ve made of the electoral process, they wouldn’t have written Article 2 the way they did.

FFS Ches, the whole reason for the NPV proposal is because entire blocks of voters are disenfranchised by the current system.

If by “real solution” you mean a Constitutional amendment, you’re being disingenuous. You know as well as I that it won’t happen.

It won't take a constitutional amendment to enact proportional allocation of EC votes - that's not enshrined in the Constitution.  Is it taking an amendment to try to end-run the states with NPV?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Why do you continue to make up a reason for the EC that 1) didn't exist AS a reason for the EC  and 2) from all we can tell, has nothing to do we actual influence, which is that only 7 states with outcomes that are up-for-grabs actually count in national elections?

 In the current system, that means that 43 states "don't matter"
 

Your cure is worse than the disease. It's not eczema, it's leprosy

No - what it means is that who those 43 states matter TO is generally taken for granted.  You don't think that they get federal consideration and influence from their party for that support?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I am also that dug in. The original reasoning for the EC, that we needed moderate, thoughtful educated men to tamp down the passions of the electorate never worked, and frankly, is condescending to the modern american voter. 

I think the modern american voter is pretty fucking stupid and ill informed. The difference then vs. now is now is now even the "best and brightest" are insular stupid and comparatively ill-informed about lots of things vs. 250 years again when a well-informed dilletante could have "decent" knowledge in lots of subjects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

I think the modern american voter is pretty fucking stupid and ill informed. The difference then vs. now is now is now even the "best and brightest" are insular stupid and comparatively ill-informed about lots of things vs. 250 years again when a well-informed dilletante could have "decent" knowledge in lots of subjects.

People are smarter and more well informed now than they ever have been.   How sad is that?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

No - what it means is that who those 43 states matter TO is generally taken for granted.  You don't think that they get federal consideration and influence from their party for that support?  

No - your fallacy of the EC driving legislative agendas is beyond bizarre and approaching delusional. It's clear that the national parties don't pay any attention to the states in their hip pocket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

People are smarter and more well informed now than they ever have been.   How sad is that?

I don't think people are smarter than before but modern peoples do have access to far more information and education than ever before. The problem is, imo, many of them don't access it. Not that they can't, not that they are incapable of understanding, just that they don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 I disagree - and don't want to see entire blocks of voters disenfranchised.  

That was the exact same argument that led to the 3/5th's compromise. Certain voters would be "disenfranchised" if blacks were given an entire vote. That they would be disenfranchised doesn't make their original voting power "fair" nor the compromise settled on to keep them happy. The parallels are eerie.

However the most enlightening thing about this thread is the fact that you, Chesapeake, are going "Full Trump", blowing away even the most slimmest of doubts you want to practice what you preach. You have criticised people for telling you what you think, only to tell them what they think. You have criticised people for ignoring your arguments, whilst ignoring the arguments they provide for theirs (going so far as to claim none are provided). You complain that they won't concede your "point", whilst ignoring that they have demonstrated theirs. You criticise people for finding your argument uncompelling due to what they value, whilst ignoring the fact that their values are what make their arguments compelling to those that share them. You criticise people for basing their argument on the basis of partisan benefits, then all but concede that you see the current situation being to the Republicans favour (a party you admit to favouring over the Democrats).

If you truly, honestly cannot see why no-one is buying into your argument - the fundamental issue is that you value the equality of states over the equality of people (you admit as much a couple of times) and most people don't share that belief. They think that people are more important than states. If one must lose equality to maintain equality in the other, it is the belief of most you're fighting in here that the states must be on the losing end because the people are fundamentally more important than the government. If you want to prove your argument, you must prove that states are more important than the people... and you haven't even tried to do that. Merely repeated, over and over, that they are because you say they are.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

That was the exact same argument that led to the 3/5th's compromise. Certain voters would be "disenfranchised" if blacks were given an entire vote. That they would be disenfranchised doesn't make their original voting power "fair" nor the compromise settled on to keep them happy. The parallels are eerie.

However the most enlightening thing about this thread is the fact that you, Chesapeake, are going "Full Trump", blowing away even the most slimmest of doubts you want to practice what you preach. You have criticised people for telling you what you think, only to tell them what they think. You have criticised people for ignoring your arguments, whilst ignoring the arguments they provide for theirs (going so far as to claim none are provided). You complain that they won't concede your "point", whilst ignoring that they have demonstrated theirs. You criticise people for finding your argument uncompelling due to what they value, whilst ignoring the fact that their values are what make their arguments compelling to those that share them. You criticise people for basing their argument on the basis of partisan benefits, then all but concede that you see the current situation being to the Republicans favour (a party you admit to favouring over the Democrats).

If you truly, honestly cannot see why no-one is buying into your argument - the fundamental issue is that you value the equality of states over the equality of people (you admit as much a couple of times) and most people don't share that belief. They think that people are more important than states. If one must lose equality to maintain equality in the other, it is the belief of most you're fighting in here that the states must be on the losing end because the people are fundamentally more important than the government. If you want to prove your argument, you must prove that states are more important than the people... and you haven't even tried to do that. Merely repeated, over and over, that they are because you say they are.

 

I don’t know that Ches has gone full Trump yet, but he’s surely gone full partisan. 

On 5/10/2019 at 10:12 AM, Sean said:
On 5/10/2019 at 10:01 AM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

 

From the article I linked above -

“And if a Democrat ever wins the presidency while losing the popular vote, it's a safe bet that the Electoral College will be gone in about five minutes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 11:25 AM, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

I am that dug in - I think that the NPV will create situations that are harmful, while not generating enough benefit to counter its harmful effects.   I would rather have NO change, than to accept a change that I think will cause harm, while we work towards the change that we all agree is a better solution.   You, O, Flash?  y'all are ready to toss the baby out with the bathwater because you "don't think that states matter".   I disagree - and don't want to see entire blocks of voters disenfranchised.  

The reluctance to pursue a real solution makes me question the motivation of those who are pushing for a change NOW - do they really want to address an inequity, or do they want to create a different inequity in the hops of achieving a personal political objective?   

I grant that states serve a regional purpose. However, when CA is 68 times the size of Wyoming and both have two Senators then your claim that you don't want to see entire blocks of voters disenfranchised is simple bull shit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2019 at 11:54 AM, Raz'r said:

RIght. Imagine!

You do realize that the EC votes are a few weeks after the popular election. No, scratch that. Of course you don't.

A state does not have to reveal a certified count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/9/2019 at 2:34 PM, Raz'r said:

because a person in Wyoming is 5 times more worthy of selecting the president than someone in Fresno.  Right.

Fresno? YES!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, warbird said:

A state does not have to reveal a certified count.

There are no states which do not have to reveal a certified count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

There are no states which do not have to reveal a certified count.

I think he was talking about his state of mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. Ditching the EC wins (Constitutional amendment), NPV proposal concept loses (no Constitutional amendment).

Gallup -

Study: Most Americans favor popular vote over Electoral College

https://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2019/05/15/Study-Most-Americans-favor-popular-vote-over-Electoral-College/6501557934021/

Excerpt -

Gallup posed the scenario to more than 1,000 Americans and found 55 percent favored eliminating the Electoral College altogether and going with the popular vote. Forty-three percent opposed the idea.

However, the survey showed that a similar idea -- in which states would simply give their electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote -- was less agreeable. Just 45 percent supported that concept, while 53 percent opposed it. Under the current system, states award their electoral votes to the winner of the statewide popular vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/10/2019 at 10:09 AM, Sean said:

 

The Electoral College doesn't benefit small states. What it does is even dumber.

https://theweek.com/articles/840362/electoral-college-doesnt-benefit-small-states-what-does-even-dumber

Excerpt -

The 2016 candidates spent almost all their time in a handful of states, most of them medium or large. Two-thirds of campaign events happened in just six states — Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, and Michigan. If we include Iowa, New Hampshire, Colorado, Nevada, Wisconsin, and Arizona, then those 12 states account for 96 percent of campaign events.”

“The nine smallest states (including D.C.), meanwhile, got precisely zero attention. Only the tenth-largest, New Hampshire, got any events at all. In total, 25 states (mostly small and medium-sized) got no events whatsoever. And while it’s true the states that got huge attention are mostly on the big side, the very largest states were almost totally ignored as well — California and Texas got one event apiece, and New York none.”

“The reason for this is obvious. Almost every state gives all of its electoral votesto whoever wins the state — allowing candidates to take the votes of strongly partisan states for granted. Indeed, it’s actively foolish to campaign where you are guaranteed to win or lose — only the swing states matter.”

The consensus electoral map shows just seven states currently Toss Ups.

I'm not sure having campaign events is any kind of benefit.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/12/2019 at 7:34 PM, Olsonist said:

There are no states which do not have to reveal a certified count.

Is there a requirement to post/submit/reveal a certified count in Federal election law? It is my understanding that the elections are run by the individual states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, warbird said:

Is there a requirement to post/submit/reveal a certified count in Federal election law? It is my understanding that the elections are run by the individual states.

And each of these individual states requires itself to post/submit/reveal a certified count. As strange as this may seem, even Alabama does this thing. Consequently, there are no states which do not have to reveal a certified count.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:

And each of these individual states requires itself to post/submit/reveal a certified count. As strange as this may seem, even Alabama does this thing. Consequently, there are no states which do not have to reveal a certified count.

Wi ELECTION LAW

7.70.5.b says nothing about count. Only a "determination of the results" is required by the election commission. Be careful what you wish for.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, warbird said:

Wi ELECTION LAW

7.70.5.b says nothing about count. Only a "determination of the results" is required by the election commission. Be careful what you wish for.....

what are you talking about?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

what are you talking about?

Warbird is making this weird claim that a state does not have to reveal a certified count. I'm pointing out that just because los Federales don't require a certified count (elections are largely left to the states) doesn't mean that the states themselves don't place the same burden on themselves. Now he's trying to parse the wording. Sometimes you have to play the fish before reeling them in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Warbird is making this weird claim that a state does not have to reveal a certified count. I'm pointing out that just because los Federales don't require a certified count (elections are largely left to the states) doesn't mean that the states themselves don't place the same burden on themselves. Now he's trying to parse the wording. Sometimes you have to play the fish before reeling them in.

It is Friday and he is in Wisconsin. Must be into the brandy a bit early.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jerseyguy said:

he is in Wisconsin. Must be into the brandy a bit early.

That’s all you needed. I’d lay odds on Christian Brothers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jerseyguy said:

It is Friday and he is in Wisconsin. Must be into the brandy a bit early.

Wisconsin. So maybe paired with some aged Kraft slices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Wisconsin. So maybe paired with some aged Kraft slices.

Velveeta log you heathen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Olsonist said:

Wisconsin. So maybe paired with some aged Kraft slices.

No, Sargento cheese. Gotta support the local guys.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Velveeta log you heathen.

Speaking of heathens, Velveeta?  Maybe cheese curds, but not Velveeta.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

what are you talking about?

 

6 hours ago, warbird said:

Wi ELECTION LAW

7.70.5.b says nothing about count. Only a "determination of the results" is required by the election commission. Be careful what you wish for.....

 

6 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

what are you talking about?

If a total vote count is not released, as it seems is not required,  one State's election board can throw a wrench into the EC NPV movement. AND at some point if NPV is adop