Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Republicans have won the popular vote in the past and nothing says they can’t come up with a candidate and message that will win the popular vote in the futureWhat would happen if the EC was abolished and we went to a national popular vote for president? For one thing, we'd pretty much be a one-party gov't run by the democrats, wouldn't we? Does anyone believe that is a good idea? Do you think the repubs would have a chance in hell of electing a GOP president? The major population urban cities would determine who wins, and rural America would essentially be shut-out, right? Is that a good thing, liberal progressives want one man one vote except if that man or woman lives out in the sticks somewhere. There's a reason why the Senate requires each state to have only 2 seats regardless of their population size. It's the same reason why we do not elect our president by a popular national vote. It's called the tyranny of the majority.
The states have the Senate but they do not have the House, because House seats are apportioned based on population. But the democrats want to change that so that the Senate goes to a simple 51 vote majority for everything. Is that really a good thing? I am not sure that passing whatever you want without any input or control by the minority is a good thing. Maybe sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something stupid.
But that is exactly what you want, a tiny group of states determining who will lead the nation.The president and vice-president should be elected by the popular vote. It would end all these issues regarding electors and a tiny group of states and people determining who will lead the nation.
LOL. So you're OK with that, hah?
No, a popular vote will be based on the will of the people regardless of state.But that is exactly what you want, a tiny group of states determining who will lead the nation.
No, you suggested that ONE county would get ONE vote.Again, you seemed to totally ignore what I posted. I posted that PEOPLE vote, not land. Of course land can't vote.
2. We've got 3,244 counties in the country so we give each county one vote each plus that small handful of territories and they all get one vote each based on popular votes in those areas
Dictatorship is favored by the dictators.What would happen if the EC was abolished and we went to a national popular vote for president? For one thing, we'd pretty much be a one-party gov't run by the democrats, wouldn't we? Does anyone believe that is a good idea? Do you think the repubs would have a chance in hell of electing a GOP president? The major population urban cities would determine who wins, and rural America would essentially be shut-out, right? Is that a good thing, liberal progressives want one man one vote except if that man or woman lives out in the sticks somewhere. There's a reason why the Senate requires each state to have only 2 seats regardless of their population size. It's the same reason why we do not elect our president by a popular national vote. It's called the tyranny of the majority.
The states have the Senate but they do not have the House, because House seats are apportioned based on population. But the democrats want to change that so that the Senate goes to a simple 51 vote majority for everything. Is that really a good thing? I am not sure that passing whatever you want without any input or control by the minority is a good thing. Maybe sometimes doing nothing is better than doing something stupid.
But the democrats want to change that so that the Senate goes to a simple 51 vote majority for everything. Is that really a good thing? I am not sure that passing whatever you want without any input or control by the minority is a good thing.
We don't need New York and California ruling the entire country.Republicans have won the popular vote in the past and nothing says they can’t come up with a candidate and message that will win the popular vote in the future
LA County has 10 million residentsNo, you suggested that ONE county would get ONE vote.
That suggestion implies the Largest County and the Smallest County would each ONLY get ONE Vote.
Where did I say that real estate votes? I clearly said that people vote.
We don't need California and New York dictating their will to the whole country.No, a popular vote will be based on the will of the people regardless of state.
We don't need New York and California ruling the entire country.
There are over 3000 counties!No, you suggested that ONE county would get ONE vote.
That suggestion implies the Largest County and the Smallest County would each ONLY get ONE Vote.
Both the House and Senate should need supermajorities.Better than the minority rule you get with a 40 percent filibuster.
Senate should be a simple majority
House should be a simple majority
The President signs
You have to have all three to pass legislation
Better than having 40 percent of one leg to block legislation
But but but your system uses geographical limits - the US states and it's territories. Are you saying that our voting should be open to the world?
Minority rule of both HousesBoth the House and Senate should need supermajorities.
We're not talking about 2 counties. We're talking about over 3000 counties. Two counties by themselves would have little say, whether they be red or blue.LA County has 10 million residents
Buttfuk County in Texas has 3,000
Why would anyone want them to have the same power?
We're not talking about 2 counties. We're talking about over 3000 counties. Two counties by themselves would have little say, whether they be red or blue.
No me.LA County has 10 million residents
Buttfuk County in Texas has 3,000
Why would anyone want them to have the same power?
There are many conservative areas of California and New York, just as there are many liberal areas of Florida and Texas. In a popular vote, the people will decide.We don't need New York and California ruling the entire country.
