11 Democrat states have formed a pact to sabotage the Electoral College

[ChrisL]

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Take 2nd amendment. You don't like it, I get it. You also know the way to change the Constitution. But no, you don't want to go that way, you wanna limit constitutional rights thru courts. Change definition of "assault" weapons, so you can get semi guns taken away. Take gay "marriage". You lost in thru Prop 8 in California, and after losing the CA courts you still pushed thru SC. You attack freedom of speech, declaring everything you don't like as hate speech. Yeah, last Democrat president was given primaries, thru rule change as he has been awarded votes he didn't win. What about rule changes in Senate during Reid. Nah, you can't see any of that, and when you do than you deny it. That's your game...

WTF? Where did anything in my post lead to me not liking the second amendment or wanting to use the courts to limit Constitutional rights?

I have never been to California, let alone had anything to do with Proposition 8.

How have I attacked freedom of speech? When did I declare anything, let along everything I don't like, as hate speech?

Primaries are a good deal different than the Electoral College.

I've got to say, you are the one who seems to have no clue what they are talking about here.

The Constitution gives the power over how electors are chosen to state legislatures. No rule has to be changed for that to be true, it's already there in Article 2 Section 1, which has been posted in this thread repeatedly.

Well, not you, but leftists in general do those things. That's why people don't like leftists.

Is it.

Whatta you suppose people think about being lumped in with blatant generalization fallacies?

The leftists need to just stop pouting. If they actually manage to get Trump impeached, then they are going to get Pence. No amount of bitching about the process is going to change these simple facts. Leftists are just not very good about facing the hard cold realities of life.

Once AGAIN (unofficial count says this is the eleventh time) -- "leftists" or "rightists" are not the ones taking this initiative. "Democrats" or "Republicans" are not the ones taking this initiative, not even "Whigs" or "Tories".

STATE LEGISLATURES are the entities signing on to it. There ain't nothing "left", "right", "Democrat", "Republican" or even "Sagittarian" about it. The title of this thread is complete made up CRAP that has long since been discredited.

Do you have a link to show that it has been discredited? Because I don't know anything about that. I am simply responding to THIS thread based on the links given.

Sure. READ THE LAST SEVEN HUNDRED POSTS.

Hell, just read the OP's own link. There's nothing there about "leftists" or "Democrats" or anything else. it couldn't even work that way.

As I just pointed out for the umpteenth time just a few posts ago, if this initiative were in effect in 2016 and Rump had won the popular vote, Connecticut, and all the other states in it, would have had to cast their Electoral Votes for Rump.

How does that compute to "leftists"?

Hm?

Further, it's got zero to do with "impeachment" either.

Anyways, since it would not be surprising to me that leftists WOULD do this, I think that in itself says a whole lot.

Yes. It says you're wallowing in abject ignorance.

Of course it's leftists. Lol. Nobody else is THAT demented over Trump.

 

[ChrisL]

Not to mention, you have all the leftists here defending it!

 

[Pogo]

WTF? Where did anything in my post lead to me not liking the second amendment or wanting to use the courts to limit Constitutional rights?

I have never been to California, let alone had anything to do with Proposition 8.

How have I attacked freedom of speech? When did I declare anything, let along everything I don't like, as hate speech?

Primaries are a good deal different than the Electoral College.

I've got to say, you are the one who seems to have no clue what they are talking about here.

The Constitution gives the power over how electors are chosen to state legislatures. No rule has to be changed for that to be true, it's already there in Article 2 Section 1, which has been posted in this thread repeatedly.

Well, not you, but leftists in general do those things. That's why people don't like leftists.

Is it.

Whatta you suppose people think about being lumped in with blatant generalization fallacies?

The leftists need to just stop pouting. If they actually manage to get Trump impeached, then they are going to get Pence. No amount of bitching about the process is going to change these simple facts. Leftists are just not very good about facing the hard cold realities of life.

Once AGAIN (unofficial count says this is the eleventh time) -- "leftists" or "rightists" are not the ones taking this initiative. "Democrats" or "Republicans" are not the ones taking this initiative, not even "Whigs" or "Tories".

STATE LEGISLATURES are the entities signing on to it. There ain't nothing "left", "right", "Democrat", "Republican" or even "Sagittarian" about it. The title of this thread is complete made up CRAP that has long since been discredited.

Do you have a link to show that it has been discredited? Because I don't know anything about that. I am simply responding to THIS thread based on the links given.

Sure. READ THE LAST SEVEN HUNDRED POSTS.

Hell, just read the OP's own link. There's nothing there about "leftists" or "Democrats" or anything else. it couldn't even work that way.

As I just pointed out for the umpteenth time just a few posts ago, if this initiative were in effect in 2016 and Rump had won the popular vote, Connecticut, and all the other states in it, would have had to cast their Electoral Votes for Rump.

How does that compute to "leftists"?

Hm?

Further, it's got zero to do with "impeachment" either.

Anyways, since it would not be surprising to me that leftists WOULD do this, I think that in itself says a whole lot.

Yes. It says you're wallowing in abject ignorance.

Of course it's leftists. Lol. Nobody else is THAT demented over Trump.

Once AGAIN --- it's got zero to do with Rump.
This thing is at least twelve years old.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, not you, but leftists in general do those things. That's why people don't like leftists.

Is it.

Whatta you suppose people think about being lumped in with blatant generalization fallacies?

The leftists need to just stop pouting. If they actually manage to get Trump impeached, then they are going to get Pence. No amount of bitching about the process is going to change these simple facts. Leftists are just not very good about facing the hard cold realities of life.

Once AGAIN (unofficial count says this is the eleventh time) -- "leftists" or "rightists" are not the ones taking this initiative. "Democrats" or "Republicans" are not the ones taking this initiative, not even "Whigs" or "Tories".

STATE LEGISLATURES are the entities signing on to it. There ain't nothing "left", "right", "Democrat", "Republican" or even "Sagittarian" about it. The title of this thread is complete made up CRAP that has long since been discredited.

Do you have a link to show that it has been discredited? Because I don't know anything about that. I am simply responding to THIS thread based on the links given.

Sure. READ THE LAST SEVEN HUNDRED POSTS.

Hell, just read the OP's own link. There's nothing there about "leftists" or "Democrats" or anything else. it couldn't even work that way.

As I just pointed out for the umpteenth time just a few posts ago, if this initiative were in effect in 2016 and Rump had won the popular vote, Connecticut, and all the other states in it, would have had to cast their Electoral Votes for Rump.

How does that compute to "leftists"?

Hm?

Further, it's got zero to do with "impeachment" either.

Anyways, since it would not be surprising to me that leftists WOULD do this, I think that in itself says a whole lot.

Yes. It says you're wallowing in abject ignorance.

Of course it's leftists. Lol. Nobody else is THAT demented over Trump.

Once AGAIN --- it's got zero to do with Rump.
This thing is at least twelve years old.

May 7, 2018. That is not 12 years old. That's not even 12 days old.

 

[ChrisL]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Dominique Mosbergen
,
HuffPost•May 7, 2018

Connecticut's legislature has passed a bill that would give the state's
Connecticut’s legislature has passed a bill that would give the state’s Electoral College votes to the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote nationally.



Governor Dan Malloy

✔@GovMalloyOffice
https://twitter.com/GovMalloyOffice/status/992889669263208449

The #CTSenate just adopted legislation opting #CT into the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, under which states allocate electoral votes to the presidential candidate who wins the most votes.

It next moves to the Governor's desk for his signature. http://portal.ct.gov/Office-of-the-Governor/Press-Room/Press-Releases/2018/05-2018/Gov-Malloy-and-Lt-Gov-Wyman-Statements-on-Final-Passage-of-National-Popular-Vote-Bill …

6:11 PM - May 5, 2018

Gov Malloy and Lt Gov Wyman Statements on Final Passage of National Popular Vote Bill
portal.ct.gov

• 
  163
• 
  215 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy


The compact requires its members to cast their Electoral College ballots for the presidential candidate who wins the national popular vote. The agreement goes into effect once states representing at least 270 electoral votes — the number needed for a candidate to win the presidency — signs the compact.


So, basically they want to give up their electoral vote and just want to have their electoral votes go to whoever wins the NATIONAL popular vote. Basically, their state has no say in the outcome of presidential elections anymore. Their citizens votes don't matter if the majority in THEIR state voted for the other candidate.

 

[ChrisL]

Right now, it doesn't have any effect, however. It will be interesting to see the reactions in the future though, especially if the "other guy" wins the popular vote. They will more than likely be whining to have things changed back to the way they were. Lol.

 

[Montrovant]

Is it.

Whatta you suppose people think about being lumped in with blatant generalization fallacies?

Once AGAIN (unofficial count says this is the eleventh time) -- "leftists" or "rightists" are not the ones taking this initiative. "Democrats" or "Republicans" are not the ones taking this initiative, not even "Whigs" or "Tories".

STATE LEGISLATURES are the entities signing on to it. There ain't nothing "left", "right", "Democrat", "Republican" or even "Sagittarian" about it. The title of this thread is complete made up CRAP that has long since been discredited.

Do you have a link to show that it has been discredited? Because I don't know anything about that. I am simply responding to THIS thread based on the links given.

Sure. READ THE LAST SEVEN HUNDRED POSTS.

Hell, just read the OP's own link. There's nothing there about "leftists" or "Democrats" or anything else. it couldn't even work that way.

As I just pointed out for the umpteenth time just a few posts ago, if this initiative were in effect in 2016 and Rump had won the popular vote, Connecticut, and all the other states in it, would have had to cast their Electoral Votes for Rump.

How does that compute to "leftists"?

Hm?

Further, it's got zero to do with "impeachment" either.

Anyways, since it would not be surprising to me that leftists WOULD do this, I think that in itself says a whole lot.

Yes. It says you're wallowing in abject ignorance.

Of course it's leftists. Lol. Nobody else is THAT demented over Trump.

Once AGAIN --- it's got zero to do with Rump.
This thing is at least twelve years old.

May 7, 2018. That is not 12 years old. That's not even 12 days old.

Connecticut joining the compact is recent. The compact itself, however, is 12 years or so old, and all the other states and D.C. which have joined it did so prior to the 2016 election.

Status of National Popular Vote Bill in Each State

 

[Montrovant]

Right now, it doesn't have any effect, however. It will be interesting to see the reactions in the future though, especially if the "other guy" wins the popular vote. They will more than likely be whining to have things changed back to the way they were. Lol.

Considering there have been, what, 58 presidential elections? and only 5 times has a president won without winning the popular vote (and 1 of those went to the House to be decided, so it wouldn't be affected by this), it might not be that big a deal.

What would matter would be if enough states joined to implement this, and that led to the adoption of an actual popular vote rather than the EC.

 

[jillian]

Connecticut To Give Its Electoral College Votes To National Popular Vote Victor

Connecticut voted to give its Electoral College Votes to the national popular vote victor. The state Senate voted 21-14 on Saturday to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, which includes 10 states and the District of Columbia. The state House passed the measure last week, 77 to 73. California, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Maryland, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia have already signed the accord.

This might give the Corrupt Democratic Party permanent control.
With permanent control the Corrupt Democrats will be able ignore the laws and the constitution and nobody could stop them. What do you think will happen to America if the Democrats are undefeatable?

You mean the electoral college that sabotages WE THE PEOPLE from having their voices heard?

Tissue?

/-----/ "You mean the electoral college that sabotages WE THE PEOPLE from having their voices heard?" That is so stupid even by your low standards. The eC protect s the voices of the lower populated agricultural states.

so you think some uneducated lowlife white trash trump kin should have a vote worth 700 times a normal person?

one person/one vote, nutcase

and if your vote were being sabotaged, you'd be in full on meltdown.

there is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about electors voting for th4 candidate elected b y WE THE PEOPLE.

the only stupid ones are you and your lowlife brethren.

 

[martybegan]

The contortions you idiots are going through to push your BS is funny as hell to watch...

Do you really think you can just take away citizens rights, especially the right to vote by your fiat wish? This is precisely why we have a second amendment. The founders were right, they gave us a republic, if were smart enough to keep it..

The Electoral College takes away your right to vote. If you voted for the loser in your state, that vote did not count

This way, your vote counts towards the candidate of your choice regardless of how others in your state voted

By that logic any vote for the loser in an election doesn't count.

Try again.

Sorry, that doesn't work. It would work if voters were voting for President of the State. But they're not. If a state has an apportionment of, say, 13 EVs, and let's say the pop vote is close (so-called "battleground state") but in the end Clinton prevails, then by legitimate representative standards Clinton should get 7 and Rump 6. But the way it actually works Clinton got 13 and Rump got (Rudy Giuliani voice) ZEEERO. What then was the point of anyone going out to vote for Rump? It was a complete waste of time. Suppose you went out for groceries, paid for your purchases --- and then left the bags in the store. What was the point?

And one of the detriments of this corrupt system is that many of us can see how this works and the futility thereof, and don't bother to vote at all, which is why we have one of the worst election day participation rates in the world. Because what's the point?

The reason to go out is get those 13 votes for Trump.

Again, the real "fair" way to do it and still keep the flavor of the EC is to give each state's 2 Senate based EV's based on statewide vote, and the others based on Congressional districts.

NY and CA will never go for that because it means Republicans can win a share of their EV total, which they cannot do now!

2
Yea, it's a long shot, but since progressives are so short sighted they may think they can get places like Atlanta, Austin, and say Miami in return.

 

[martybegan]

By that logic any vote for the loser in an election doesn't count.

Try again.

Sorry, that doesn't work. It would work if voters were voting for President of the State. But they're not. If a state has an apportionment of, say, 13 EVs, and let's say the pop vote is close (so-called "battleground state") but in the end Clinton prevails, then by legitimate representative standards Clinton should get 7 and Rump 6. But the way it actually works Clinton got 13 and Rump got (Rudy Giuliani voice) ZEEERO. What then was the point of anyone going out to vote for Rump? It was a complete waste of time. Suppose you went out for groceries, paid for your purchases --- and then left the bags in the store. What was the point?

And one of the detriments of this corrupt system is that many of us can see how this works and the futility thereof, and don't bother to vote at all, which is why we have one of the worst election day participation rates in the world. Because what's the point?

The reason to go out is get those 13 votes for Trump.

Again, the real "fair" way to do it and still keep the flavor of the EC is to give each state's 2 Senate based EV's based on statewide vote, and the others based on Congressional districts.

NY and CA will never go for that because it means Republicans can win a share of their EV total, which they cannot do now!

Except they already did.

I think he was talking about having the House electors given out based on district voting, and only the Senate electors going by the winner-take-all state vote. In other words a proportional allocation of electoral votes, not the popular vote plan from the OP.

yes.

 

[Pogo]

So, basically they want to give up their electoral vote and just want to have their electoral votes go to whoever wins the NATIONAL popular vote. Basically, their state has no say in the outcome of presidential elections anymore. Their citizens votes don't matter if the majority in THEIR state voted for the other candidate.

Yeah that's basically correct. It's an imperfect way to address the problem, but the standing fact already is that Connecticut, and 48 other states ALREADY discard the votes of up to half their citizens. Your state does it, my state does it, EVERY state does it except for Maine and Nebraska, which put a band-aid on that scourge by only discarding up to 49.9% of their districts rather than their whole state.

Either way, as Jerry Lee Lewis used to sing, there's a whole lotta disenfranchising goin' on. As I asked Marty upthread, if your vote is being tossed in the shitcan, what difference does it make if it's your state or somebody else's state tossing it there?

So what this compact would do if it took wing would be to ensure that the winner of the popular vote would also be the winner of the election. It would still ride in on the horse of the Electoral College, so nothing is changed Constitutionally.

 

[Pogo]

Is it.

Whatta you suppose people think about being lumped in with blatant generalization fallacies?

Once AGAIN (unofficial count says this is the eleventh time) -- "leftists" or "rightists" are not the ones taking this initiative. "Democrats" or "Republicans" are not the ones taking this initiative, not even "Whigs" or "Tories".

STATE LEGISLATURES are the entities signing on to it. There ain't nothing "left", "right", "Democrat", "Republican" or even "Sagittarian" about it. The title of this thread is complete made up CRAP that has long since been discredited.

Do you have a link to show that it has been discredited? Because I don't know anything about that. I am simply responding to THIS thread based on the links given.

Sure. READ THE LAST SEVEN HUNDRED POSTS.

Hell, just read the OP's own link. There's nothing there about "leftists" or "Democrats" or anything else. it couldn't even work that way.

As I just pointed out for the umpteenth time just a few posts ago, if this initiative were in effect in 2016 and Rump had won the popular vote, Connecticut, and all the other states in it, would have had to cast their Electoral Votes for Rump.

How does that compute to "leftists"?

Hm?

Further, it's got zero to do with "impeachment" either.

Anyways, since it would not be surprising to me that leftists WOULD do this, I think that in itself says a whole lot.

Yes. It says you're wallowing in abject ignorance.

Of course it's leftists. Lol. Nobody else is THAT demented over Trump.

Once AGAIN --- it's got zero to do with Rump.
This thing is at least twelve years old.

May 7, 2018. That is not 12 years old. That's not even 12 days old.

Holy SHIT.

How in the wide world of fuck does this initiative already have a dozen states signed up INCLUDING YOUR OWN, if it's not even twelve days old? How has it passed 35 legislative chambers in 23 states in less than two weeks? Are you that oblivious to what's going on in that faraway state capital of Boston?
.
The National Popular Vote Initiative has been gathering state legislature support since at least 2006 --- which, again, was already spelled out earlier in this thread, which is why I advised you to read it. Its Advisory Board, from a dated list, "includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), Birch Bayh (D–IN), and David Durenberger (R–MN); former Congressmen John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), Tom Campbell (R–CA), and Tom Downey (D–NY). Other supporters include former Cong. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Governor Howard Dean (D–VT), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)" --- so much for "leftists" and/or "Democrats".

And you'll notice on that list the name of John Anderson, who died at the age of 95 last year, which would put this just a wee bit past "twelve days".

 

[Pogo]

Do you have a link to show that it has been discredited? Because I don't know anything about that. I am simply responding to THIS thread based on the links given.

Sure. READ THE LAST SEVEN HUNDRED POSTS.

Hell, just read the OP's own link. There's nothing there about "leftists" or "Democrats" or anything else. it couldn't even work that way.

As I just pointed out for the umpteenth time just a few posts ago, if this initiative were in effect in 2016 and Rump had won the popular vote, Connecticut, and all the other states in it, would have had to cast their Electoral Votes for Rump.

How does that compute to "leftists"?

Hm?

Further, it's got zero to do with "impeachment" either.

Anyways, since it would not be surprising to me that leftists WOULD do this, I think that in itself says a whole lot.

Yes. It says you're wallowing in abject ignorance.

Of course it's leftists. Lol. Nobody else is THAT demented over Trump.

Once AGAIN --- it's got zero to do with Rump.
This thing is at least twelve years old.

May 7, 2018. That is not 12 years old. That's not even 12 days old.

Holy SHIT.

How in the wide world of fuck does this initiative already have a dozen states signed up INCLUDING YOUR OWN, if it's not even twelve days old? How has it passed 35 legislative chambers in 23 states in less than two weeks? Are you that oblivious to what's going on in that faraway state capital of Boston?
.
The National Popular Vote Initiative has been gathering state legislature support since at least 2006 --- which, again, was already spelled out earlier in this thread, which is why I advised you to read it. Its Advisory Board, from a dated list, "includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), Birch Bayh (D–IN), and David Durenberger (R–MN); former Congressmen John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), Tom Campbell (R–CA), and Tom Downey (D–NY). Other supporters include former Cong. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Governor Howard Dean (D–VT), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)" --- so much for "leftists" and/or "Democrats".

And you'll notice on that list the name of John Anderson, who died at the age of 95 last year, which would put this just a wee bit past "twelve days".

And speaking of John Anderson this brings up yet another point against the Electoral College as practiced. One we haven't even mentioned.

Anderson, as you (should) know, ran an independent campaign for President in 1980. While he siphoned off close to six million popular votes from both incumbent Carter and challenger Reagan, he got no electoral votes. Anderson's showing in the election was the strongest for a third-party candidate since George Wallace's American Independent Party run in 1968, which invites the question of how a third-party strategy works, given the operation of the WTA-EC.

Unless such a third-party run can seriously challenge for Electoral Votes, which hasn't happened since 1912 and only then can be attributed to the name recognition of a former two-term President (Roosevelt), all a third-party run can hope for is to siphon off not a majority of EVs, but enough to deny any other candidate such a majority (currently 270) ---- which then throws the choice of President into the House of Representatives and cuts out both the popular AND the EC vote. This was Wallace's strategy in 1968 as well as the strategy of the so-called "Dixiecrats" of 20 years earlier. From their regional influence the Dixiecrats were able to actually knock the Democratic nominee off the ballot in Alabama and substitute their own ticket and take top billing in three others. They very nearly succeeded in denying Truman the win -- Truman won a 4.5% edge in the PV but squeaked by in the Electoral College with less of a margin than Rump had.

Had Thurmond and his Dixiecrat movement greased more support out of the upper South (Tennessee, Virginia) they may have succeeded. As it was they got as close as they did with less than two-and-a-half percent of the national popular vote.

Thus the Electoral College system is vulnerable to a radical fringe with enough friends in high places (the House) getting a radical candidate (such as Wallace or Thurmond) into high office. Anderson was no radical (except in the sense that he openly suggested he might name a black running mate), but it's clearly an exploitable opening for those who are, which would not be even remotely possible under either a popular vote or an effective popular vote as the initiative in the topic would produce.


Anderson btw, a 20-year Republican Congressman, went on to co-found and chair Fair Vote, which was the first site I quoted in spelling out the origins of the EC.

 

[Montrovant]

Do you have a link to show that it has been discredited? Because I don't know anything about that. I am simply responding to THIS thread based on the links given.

Sure. READ THE LAST SEVEN HUNDRED POSTS.

Hell, just read the OP's own link. There's nothing there about "leftists" or "Democrats" or anything else. it couldn't even work that way.

As I just pointed out for the umpteenth time just a few posts ago, if this initiative were in effect in 2016 and Rump had won the popular vote, Connecticut, and all the other states in it, would have had to cast their Electoral Votes for Rump.

How does that compute to "leftists"?

Hm?

Further, it's got zero to do with "impeachment" either.

Anyways, since it would not be surprising to me that leftists WOULD do this, I think that in itself says a whole lot.

Yes. It says you're wallowing in abject ignorance.

Of course it's leftists. Lol. Nobody else is THAT demented over Trump.

Once AGAIN --- it's got zero to do with Rump.
This thing is at least twelve years old.

May 7, 2018. That is not 12 years old. That's not even 12 days old.

Holy SHIT.

How in the wide world of fuck does this initiative already have a dozen states signed up INCLUDING YOUR OWN, if it's not even twelve days old? How has it passed 35 legislative chambers in 23 states in less than two weeks? Are you that oblivious to what's going on in that faraway state capital of Boston?
.
The National Popular Vote Initiative has been gathering state legislature support since at least 2006 --- which, again, was already spelled out earlier in this thread, which is why I advised you to read it. Its Advisory Board, from a dated list, "includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), Birch Bayh (D–IN), and David Durenberger (R–MN); former Congressmen John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), Tom Campbell (R–CA), and Tom Downey (D–NY). Other supporters include former Cong. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Governor Howard Dean (D–VT), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)" --- so much for "leftists" and/or "Democrats".

And you'll notice on that list the name of John Anderson, who died at the age of 95 last year, which would put this just a wee bit past "twelve days".

I had missed that listing of the Advisory Board. That's a fairly mixed bag, at least from the 2 major parties.

 

[Montrovant]

Sure. READ THE LAST SEVEN HUNDRED POSTS.

Hell, just read the OP's own link. There's nothing there about "leftists" or "Democrats" or anything else. it couldn't even work that way.

As I just pointed out for the umpteenth time just a few posts ago, if this initiative were in effect in 2016 and Rump had won the popular vote, Connecticut, and all the other states in it, would have had to cast their Electoral Votes for Rump.

How does that compute to "leftists"?

Hm?

Further, it's got zero to do with "impeachment" either.


Yes. It says you're wallowing in abject ignorance.

Of course it's leftists. Lol. Nobody else is THAT demented over Trump.

Once AGAIN --- it's got zero to do with Rump.
This thing is at least twelve years old.

May 7, 2018. That is not 12 years old. That's not even 12 days old.

Holy SHIT.

How in the wide world of fuck does this initiative already have a dozen states signed up INCLUDING YOUR OWN, if it's not even twelve days old? How has it passed 35 legislative chambers in 23 states in less than two weeks? Are you that oblivious to what's going on in that faraway state capital of Boston?
.
The National Popular Vote Initiative has been gathering state legislature support since at least 2006 --- which, again, was already spelled out earlier in this thread, which is why I advised you to read it. Its Advisory Board, from a dated list, "includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), Birch Bayh (D–IN), and David Durenberger (R–MN); former Congressmen John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), Tom Campbell (R–CA), and Tom Downey (D–NY). Other supporters include former Cong. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Governor Howard Dean (D–VT), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)" --- so much for "leftists" and/or "Democrats".

And you'll notice on that list the name of John Anderson, who died at the age of 95 last year, which would put this just a wee bit past "twelve days".

And speaking of John Anderson this brings up yet another point against the Electoral College as practiced. One we haven't even mentioned.

Anderson, as you (should) know, ran an independent campaign for President in 1980. While he siphoned off close to six million popular votes from both incumbent Carter and challenger Reagan, he got no electoral votes. Anderson's showing in the election was the strongest for a third-party candidate since George Wallace's American Independent Party run in 1968, which invites the question of how a third-party strategy works, given the operation of the WTA-EC.

Unless such a third-party run can seriously challenge for Electoral Votes, which hasn't happened since 1912 and only then can be attributed to the name recognition of a former two-term President (Roosevelt), all a third-party run can hope for is to siphon off not a majority of EVs, but enough to deny any other candidate such a majority (currently 270) ---- which then throws the choice of President into the House of Representatives and cuts out both the popular AND the EC vote. This was Wallace's strategy in 1968 as well as the strategy of the so-called "Dixiecrats" of 20 years earlier. From their regional influence the Dixiecrats were able to actually knock the Democratic nominee off the ballot in Alabama and substitute their own ticket and take top billing in three others. They very nearly succeeded in denying Truman the win -- Truman won a 4.5% edge in the PV but squeaked by in the Electoral College with less of a margin than Rump had.

Had Thurmond and his Dixiecrat movement greased more support out of the upper South (Tennessee, Virginia) they may have succeeded.

Thus the Electoral College system is vulnerable to a radical fringe with enough friends in high places (the House) getting a radical candidate (such as Wallace or Thurmond) into high office. Anderson was no radical (except in the sense that he openly suggested he might name a black running mate), but it's clearly an exploitable opening for those who are, which would not be even remotely possible under either a popular vote or an effective popular vote as the initiative in the topic would produce.


Anderson btw, a 20-year Republican Congressman, went on to co-found and chair Fair Vote, which was the first site I quoted in spelling out the origins of the EC.

That would depend on how a popular vote system was implemented: if a candidate required a majority of votes similar to the way candidates now need to reach the 270 threshhold, it's possible the same "vulnerability," if you want to call it that, could exist. If a candidate required a majority of popular votes, rather than a plurality, it would still leave open the possibility of elections being sent to the House to be decided. In fact, it's possible that could become more likely, if a popular vote were to inspire more people to vote third party and it had that majority rather than plurality requirement.

I don't think that is an issue inherent to the Electoral College system, rather it is due to the majority requirement.

I do find myself wishing a third party candidate could get enough electors for just such a scenario, I admit.

 

[xyz]

Of course it's leftists. Lol. Nobody else is THAT demented over Trump.

Once AGAIN --- it's got zero to do with Rump.
This thing is at least twelve years old.

May 7, 2018. That is not 12 years old. That's not even 12 days old.

Holy SHIT.

How in the wide world of fuck does this initiative already have a dozen states signed up INCLUDING YOUR OWN, if it's not even twelve days old? How has it passed 35 legislative chambers in 23 states in less than two weeks? Are you that oblivious to what's going on in that faraway state capital of Boston?
.
The National Popular Vote Initiative has been gathering state legislature support since at least 2006 --- which, again, was already spelled out earlier in this thread, which is why I advised you to read it. Its Advisory Board, from a dated list, "includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), Birch Bayh (D–IN), and David Durenberger (R–MN); former Congressmen John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), Tom Campbell (R–CA), and Tom Downey (D–NY). Other supporters include former Cong. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Governor Howard Dean (D–VT), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)" --- so much for "leftists" and/or "Democrats".

And you'll notice on that list the name of John Anderson, who died at the age of 95 last year, which would put this just a wee bit past "twelve days".

And speaking of John Anderson this brings up yet another point against the Electoral College as practiced. One we haven't even mentioned.

Anderson, as you (should) know, ran an independent campaign for President in 1980. While he siphoned off close to six million popular votes from both incumbent Carter and challenger Reagan, he got no electoral votes. Anderson's showing in the election was the strongest for a third-party candidate since George Wallace's American Independent Party run in 1968, which invites the question of how a third-party strategy works, given the operation of the WTA-EC.

Unless such a third-party run can seriously challenge for Electoral Votes, which hasn't happened since 1912 and only then can be attributed to the name recognition of a former two-term President (Roosevelt), all a third-party run can hope for is to siphon off not a majority of EVs, but enough to deny any other candidate such a majority (currently 270) ---- which then throws the choice of President into the House of Representatives and cuts out both the popular AND the EC vote. This was Wallace's strategy in 1968 as well as the strategy of the so-called "Dixiecrats" of 20 years earlier. From their regional influence the Dixiecrats were able to actually knock the Democratic nominee off the ballot in Alabama and substitute their own ticket and take top billing in three others. They very nearly succeeded in denying Truman the win -- Truman won a 4.5% edge in the PV but squeaked by in the Electoral College with less of a margin than Rump had.

Had Thurmond and his Dixiecrat movement greased more support out of the upper South (Tennessee, Virginia) they may have succeeded.

Thus the Electoral College system is vulnerable to a radical fringe with enough friends in high places (the House) getting a radical candidate (such as Wallace or Thurmond) into high office. Anderson was no radical (except in the sense that he openly suggested he might name a black running mate), but it's clearly an exploitable opening for those who are, which would not be even remotely possible under either a popular vote or an effective popular vote as the initiative in the topic would produce.


Anderson btw, a 20-year Republican Congressman, went on to co-found and chair Fair Vote, which was the first site I quoted in spelling out the origins of the EC.

That would depend on how a popular vote system was implemented: if a candidate required a majority of votes similar to the way candidates now need to reach the 270 threshhold, it's possible the same "vulnerability," if you want to call it that, could exist. If a candidate required a majority of popular votes, rather than a plurality, it would still leave open the possibility of elections being sent to the House to be decided. In fact, it's possible that could become more likely, if a popular vote were to inspire more people to vote third party and it had that majority rather than plurality requirement.

I don't think that is an issue inherent to the Electoral College system, rather it is due to the majority requirement.

I do find myself wishing a third party candidate could get enough electors for just such a scenario, I admit.

The way that's done in other countries is that there are rounds of elections, if no one gets 50%, the top two go to the second round.

The difference with the US is that most of these countries have to get signatures for a candidate nationwide, not usually split up into smaller units like states that are all or nothing, and the votes are also counted as nationwide totals.

Although they may still use the local concept in some elections, for local officials or representatives to their parliament or whatever they call it.

 

[Pogo]

Of course it's leftists. Lol. Nobody else is THAT demented over Trump.

Once AGAIN --- it's got zero to do with Rump.
This thing is at least twelve years old.

May 7, 2018. That is not 12 years old. That's not even 12 days old.

Holy SHIT.

How in the wide world of fuck does this initiative already have a dozen states signed up INCLUDING YOUR OWN, if it's not even twelve days old? How has it passed 35 legislative chambers in 23 states in less than two weeks? Are you that oblivious to what's going on in that faraway state capital of Boston?
.
The National Popular Vote Initiative has been gathering state legislature support since at least 2006 --- which, again, was already spelled out earlier in this thread, which is why I advised you to read it. Its Advisory Board, from a dated list, "includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), Birch Bayh (D–IN), and David Durenberger (R–MN); former Congressmen John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), Tom Campbell (R–CA), and Tom Downey (D–NY). Other supporters include former Cong. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Governor Howard Dean (D–VT), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)" --- so much for "leftists" and/or "Democrats".

And you'll notice on that list the name of John Anderson, who died at the age of 95 last year, which would put this just a wee bit past "twelve days".

And speaking of John Anderson this brings up yet another point against the Electoral College as practiced. One we haven't even mentioned.

Anderson, as you (should) know, ran an independent campaign for President in 1980. While he siphoned off close to six million popular votes from both incumbent Carter and challenger Reagan, he got no electoral votes. Anderson's showing in the election was the strongest for a third-party candidate since George Wallace's American Independent Party run in 1968, which invites the question of how a third-party strategy works, given the operation of the WTA-EC.

Unless such a third-party run can seriously challenge for Electoral Votes, which hasn't happened since 1912 and only then can be attributed to the name recognition of a former two-term President (Roosevelt), all a third-party run can hope for is to siphon off not a majority of EVs, but enough to deny any other candidate such a majority (currently 270) ---- which then throws the choice of President into the House of Representatives and cuts out both the popular AND the EC vote. This was Wallace's strategy in 1968 as well as the strategy of the so-called "Dixiecrats" of 20 years earlier. From their regional influence the Dixiecrats were able to actually knock the Democratic nominee off the ballot in Alabama and substitute their own ticket and take top billing in three others. They very nearly succeeded in denying Truman the win -- Truman won a 4.5% edge in the PV but squeaked by in the Electoral College with less of a margin than Rump had.

Had Thurmond and his Dixiecrat movement greased more support out of the upper South (Tennessee, Virginia) they may have succeeded. As it was they got as close as they did with less than two-and-a-half percent of the national popular vote.

Thus the Electoral College system is vulnerable to a radical fringe with enough friends in high places (the House) getting a radical candidate (such as Wallace or Thurmond) into high office. Anderson was no radical (except in the sense that he openly suggested he might name a black running mate), but it's clearly an exploitable opening for those who are, which would not be even remotely possible under either a popular vote or an effective popular vote as the initiative in the topic would produce.


Anderson btw, a 20-year Republican Congressman, went on to co-found and chair Fair Vote, which was the first site I quoted in spelling out the origins of the EC.

That would depend on how a popular vote system was implemented: if a candidate required a majority of votes similar to the way candidates now need to reach the 270 threshhold, it's possible the same "vulnerability," if you want to call it that, could exist. If a candidate required a majority of popular votes, rather than a plurality, it would still leave open the possibility of elections being sent to the House to be decided. In fact, it's possible that could become more likely, if a popular vote were to inspire more people to vote third party and it had that majority rather than plurality requirement.

I don't think that is an issue inherent to the Electoral College system, rather it is due to the majority requirement.

I do find myself wishing a third party candidate could get enough electors for just such a scenario, I admit.

I firmly believe a popular vote, by whatever method, would most certainly improve the chances of any third-party candy. As it is now a voter in a so-called "battleground" state can't do it if they have any interest against one of the Duopoly candies, requiring them to vote not necessarily "for" one candy but "against" the other, lest the despised candy take their whole state. That absolutely happens now. And on the other hand if a voter lives in a so-called "red" or "blue" state, they have the freedom to cast a protest 3P vote, but it makes no splash whatsoever in the end result. So both of those handicaps would be removed from a 3P bid, although the continuing WTA format would continue to suppress them. Ross Perot e.g. won about 19% of the PV in 1992 yet zero in the EC.

That's why one of my points about the EC is that it perpetuates the Duopoly and protects it against any threat by any party not named "Democratic" or "Republican". And that's a big reason why the Duopoly doesn't need to run a quality candy, each only needs to run one where "at least it's not that guy". And that's why we end up voting between Bad and Worse. There's no incentive to run a Good.

 

[xyz]

Once AGAIN --- it's got zero to do with Rump.
This thing is at least twelve years old.

May 7, 2018. That is not 12 years old. That's not even 12 days old.

Holy SHIT.

How in the wide world of fuck does this initiative already have a dozen states signed up INCLUDING YOUR OWN, if it's not even twelve days old? How has it passed 35 legislative chambers in 23 states in less than two weeks? Are you that oblivious to what's going on in that faraway state capital of Boston?
.
The National Popular Vote Initiative has been gathering state legislature support since at least 2006 --- which, again, was already spelled out earlier in this thread, which is why I advised you to read it. Its Advisory Board, from a dated list, "includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), Birch Bayh (D–IN), and David Durenberger (R–MN); former Congressmen John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), Tom Campbell (R–CA), and Tom Downey (D–NY). Other supporters include former Cong. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Governor Howard Dean (D–VT), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)" --- so much for "leftists" and/or "Democrats".

And you'll notice on that list the name of John Anderson, who died at the age of 95 last year, which would put this just a wee bit past "twelve days".

And speaking of John Anderson this brings up yet another point against the Electoral College as practiced. One we haven't even mentioned.

Anderson, as you (should) know, ran an independent campaign for President in 1980. While he siphoned off close to six million popular votes from both incumbent Carter and challenger Reagan, he got no electoral votes. Anderson's showing in the election was the strongest for a third-party candidate since George Wallace's American Independent Party run in 1968, which invites the question of how a third-party strategy works, given the operation of the WTA-EC.

Unless such a third-party run can seriously challenge for Electoral Votes, which hasn't happened since 1912 and only then can be attributed to the name recognition of a former two-term President (Roosevelt), all a third-party run can hope for is to siphon off not a majority of EVs, but enough to deny any other candidate such a majority (currently 270) ---- which then throws the choice of President into the House of Representatives and cuts out both the popular AND the EC vote. This was Wallace's strategy in 1968 as well as the strategy of the so-called "Dixiecrats" of 20 years earlier. From their regional influence the Dixiecrats were able to actually knock the Democratic nominee off the ballot in Alabama and substitute their own ticket and take top billing in three others. They very nearly succeeded in denying Truman the win -- Truman won a 4.5% edge in the PV but squeaked by in the Electoral College with less of a margin than Rump had.

Had Thurmond and his Dixiecrat movement greased more support out of the upper South (Tennessee, Virginia) they may have succeeded. As it was they got as close as they did with less than two-and-a-half percent of the national popular vote.

Thus the Electoral College system is vulnerable to a radical fringe with enough friends in high places (the House) getting a radical candidate (such as Wallace or Thurmond) into high office. Anderson was no radical (except in the sense that he openly suggested he might name a black running mate), but it's clearly an exploitable opening for those who are, which would not be even remotely possible under either a popular vote or an effective popular vote as the initiative in the topic would produce.


Anderson btw, a 20-year Republican Congressman, went on to co-found and chair Fair Vote, which was the first site I quoted in spelling out the origins of the EC.

That would depend on how a popular vote system was implemented: if a candidate required a majority of votes similar to the way candidates now need to reach the 270 threshhold, it's possible the same "vulnerability," if you want to call it that, could exist. If a candidate required a majority of popular votes, rather than a plurality, it would still leave open the possibility of elections being sent to the House to be decided. In fact, it's possible that could become more likely, if a popular vote were to inspire more people to vote third party and it had that majority rather than plurality requirement.

I don't think that is an issue inherent to the Electoral College system, rather it is due to the majority requirement.

I do find myself wishing a third party candidate could get enough electors for just such a scenario, I admit.

I firmly believe a popular vote, by whatever method, would most certainly improve the chances of any third-party candy. As it is now a voter in a so-called "battleground" state can't do it if they have any interest against one of the Duopoly candies, requiring them to vote not necessarily "for" one candy but "against" the other, lest the despised candy take their whole state. That absolutely happens now. And on the other hand if a voter lives in a so-called "red" or "blue" state, they have the freedom to cast a protest 3P vote, but it makes no splash whatsoever in the end result. So both of those handicaps would be removed from a 3P bid, although the continuing WTA format would continue to suppress them. Ross Perot e.g. won about 19% of the PV in 1992 yet zero in the EC.

That's why one of my points about the EC is that it perpetuates the Duopoly and protects it against any threat by any party not named "Democratic" or "Republican". And that's a big reason why the Duopoly doesn't need to run a quality candy, each only needs to run one where "at least it's not that guy". And that's why we end up voting between Bad and Worse. There's no incentive to run a Good.

I think the duopoly is very strong, even though it's not written in the Constitution, the two parties have an unfair advantage not only in presidential elections, else there would be more third parties in Congress, state assemblies, mayors, etc.

 

[dblack]

Once AGAIN --- it's got zero to do with Rump.
This thing is at least twelve years old.

May 7, 2018. That is not 12 years old. That's not even 12 days old.

Holy SHIT.

How in the wide world of fuck does this initiative already have a dozen states signed up INCLUDING YOUR OWN, if it's not even twelve days old? How has it passed 35 legislative chambers in 23 states in less than two weeks? Are you that oblivious to what's going on in that faraway state capital of Boston?
.
The National Popular Vote Initiative has been gathering state legislature support since at least 2006 --- which, again, was already spelled out earlier in this thread, which is why I advised you to read it. Its Advisory Board, from a dated list, "includes former Senators Jake Garn (R–UT), Birch Bayh (D–IN), and David Durenberger (R–MN); former Congressmen John Anderson (R–IL, I), John Buchanan (R–AL), Tom Campbell (R–CA), and Tom Downey (D–NY). Other supporters include former Cong. Tom Tancredo (R-CO), Governor Howard Dean (D–VT), Governor Jim Edgar (R–IL), and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R–GA)" --- so much for "leftists" and/or "Democrats".

And you'll notice on that list the name of John Anderson, who died at the age of 95 last year, which would put this just a wee bit past "twelve days".

And speaking of John Anderson this brings up yet another point against the Electoral College as practiced. One we haven't even mentioned.

Anderson, as you (should) know, ran an independent campaign for President in 1980. While he siphoned off close to six million popular votes from both incumbent Carter and challenger Reagan, he got no electoral votes. Anderson's showing in the election was the strongest for a third-party candidate since George Wallace's American Independent Party run in 1968, which invites the question of how a third-party strategy works, given the operation of the WTA-EC.

Unless such a third-party run can seriously challenge for Electoral Votes, which hasn't happened since 1912 and only then can be attributed to the name recognition of a former two-term President (Roosevelt), all a third-party run can hope for is to siphon off not a majority of EVs, but enough to deny any other candidate such a majority (currently 270) ---- which then throws the choice of President into the House of Representatives and cuts out both the popular AND the EC vote. This was Wallace's strategy in 1968 as well as the strategy of the so-called "Dixiecrats" of 20 years earlier. From their regional influence the Dixiecrats were able to actually knock the Democratic nominee off the ballot in Alabama and substitute their own ticket and take top billing in three others. They very nearly succeeded in denying Truman the win -- Truman won a 4.5% edge in the PV but squeaked by in the Electoral College with less of a margin than Rump had.

Had Thurmond and his Dixiecrat movement greased more support out of the upper South (Tennessee, Virginia) they may have succeeded. As it was they got as close as they did with less than two-and-a-half percent of the national popular vote.

Thus the Electoral College system is vulnerable to a radical fringe with enough friends in high places (the House) getting a radical candidate (such as Wallace or Thurmond) into high office. Anderson was no radical (except in the sense that he openly suggested he might name a black running mate), but it's clearly an exploitable opening for those who are, which would not be even remotely possible under either a popular vote or an effective popular vote as the initiative in the topic would produce.


Anderson btw, a 20-year Republican Congressman, went on to co-found and chair Fair Vote, which was the first site I quoted in spelling out the origins of the EC.

That would depend on how a popular vote system was implemented: if a candidate required a majority of votes similar to the way candidates now need to reach the 270 threshhold, it's possible the same "vulnerability," if you want to call it that, could exist. If a candidate required a majority of popular votes, rather than a plurality, it would still leave open the possibility of elections being sent to the House to be decided. In fact, it's possible that could become more likely, if a popular vote were to inspire more people to vote third party and it had that majority rather than plurality requirement.

I don't think that is an issue inherent to the Electoral College system, rather it is due to the majority requirement.

I do find myself wishing a third party candidate could get enough electors for just such a scenario, I admit.

I firmly believe a popular vote, by whatever method, would most certainly improve the chances of any third-party candy. As it is now a voter in a so-called "battleground" state can't do it if they have any interest against one of the Duopoly candies, requiring them to vote not necessarily "for" one candy but "against" the other, lest the despised candy take their whole state. That absolutely happens now. And on the other hand if a voter lives in a so-called "red" or "blue" state, they have the freedom to cast a protest 3P vote, but it makes no splash whatsoever in the end result. So both of those handicaps would be removed from a 3P bid, although the continuing WTA format would continue to suppress them. Ross Perot e.g. won about 19% of the PV in 1992 yet zero in the EC.

That's why one of my points about the EC is that it perpetuates the Duopoly and protects it against any threat by any party not named "Democratic" or "Republican". And that's a big reason why the Duopoly doesn't need to run a quality candy, each only needs to run one where "at least it's not that guy". And that's why we end up voting between Bad and Worse. There's no incentive to run a Good.

Simply changing to a popular vote wouldn't do squat. All it would do is remove some of the safeguards protecting lower population states. If we want to improve our elections we have to replace plurality, winner-take-all elections. Ranked Choice Voting / Instant Runoff- FairVote