Dems hate voter suppression but want to deprive entire states of their right to vote via the compact

[alang1216]

No, I move to wherever the predominant thinking is that political correctness is childish and immature And has no grasp on reality... Which obviously it is

Google Translate:

I want to be able to discriminate against Americans of other races, political persuasions, religions, sexual identities, and national identities. I like a political system that maintains my power at the expense of the power of people not like me.​

A fascist is a follower of a political philosophy characterized by authoritarian views and a strong central government — and no tolerance for opposing opinions.

Now who does that sound like?

 

[Rustic]

No, I move to wherever the predominant thinking is that political correctness is childish and immature And has no grasp on reality... Which obviously it is

Google Translate:

I want to be able to discriminate against Americans of other races, political persuasions, religions, sexual identities, and national identities. I like a political system that maintains my power at the expense of the power of people not like me.​

A fascist is a follower of a political philosophy characterized by authoritarian views and a strong central government — and no tolerance for opposing opinions.

Now who does that sound like?

 

[alang1216]

The divide in this country is not race and/or financial, it’s urban and rural.
The two will never have the same needs, wants and interests.

BTW Getting along is way overrated

Urbanites are 80% of the population. You may want to consider getting along.

 

[Rustic]

No, I move to wherever the predominant thinking is that political correctness is childish and immature And has no grasp on reality... Which obviously it is

Google Translate:

I want to be able to discriminate against Americans of other races, political persuasions, religions, sexual identities, and national identities. I like a political system that maintains my power at the expense of the power of people not like me.​

A fascist is a follower of a political philosophy characterized by authoritarian views and a strong central government — and no tolerance for opposing opinions.

Now who does that sound like?

Socialism

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

But I am not against the EC, I am against the Winner Take All system.

I have come around on this one. Before, I didn't like how Nebraska and Maine screwed up the count, but now I think it is a much better format.

States should all decide to do it that way.

But, you won't get Texas or California to agree, because the dominant party in both of those states wants to hang on to as much power as possible.

The Duopoly will fight this to the grave.

.

 

[Rustic]

The divide in this country is not race and/or financial, it’s urban and rural.
The two will never have the same needs, wants and interests.

BTW Getting along is way overrated

Urbanites are 80% of the population. You may want to consider getting along.

Lol

 

[rightwinger]

Nope. That would make us a democracy and not a republic.

Disastrous.

Mob rule.

No thanks.

We would still be a Republic with the Senate and House decided by the state

Only the President would be elected by popular nationwide vote

Lol
With a pure popular vote rural America would zero say in presidential elections... fact

Rural America will have less and less say in any elections as the years pass. That’s because Rural America is disappearing. As areas become more urbanized, voters shift from Republican to Democrat.

I live in a conservative rural area. Very white. Many people share the same attitudes towards the poor and urban that we see on this board. That’s because in rural areas poor people are lazy bums who milk the system. The crew that hangs around the town square all day are welfare mooches and drug addicts.

In the city, people are poor because the cost of living is high and wages are low. It’s poverty born of a system that continues to force taxpayers to subsidize corporate wages to keep prices low and shareholder profits high.

Today, rural clout is far in excess of their population.

They would lose some of that clout in voting for President but would maintain excessive clout in the House and Senate

Why do the 600,000 people in Wyoming get TWO Senators? That is more legislative power than the 40 million in California get

Lol
The founders were far smarter than you could ever dream of being…

I’m smart, I have a YUGE brain......
I am a Stable Genius

 

[alang1216]

Socialism

You would know socialism if they sent you a SS or unemployment check.

 

[alang1216]

The divide in this country is not race and/or financial, it’s urban and rural.
The two will never have the same needs, wants and interests.

BTW Getting along is way overrated

Urbanites are 80% of the population. You may want to consider getting along.

Lol

When did he come back from the dead?

 

[Hellbilly]

More bizarro world shit from Democrats.
“Republicans are assholes for suppressing black voters...but we think it’s okay to suppress an entire state”
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

Its only voter suppression when its DEMOCRATS and their agenda people dont vote for and they know best how they should vote by giving the votes to LA and NY...

When it’s republicans its a public service.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Diver Diva]

Think about it, in your state your vote and that of 4.4 million other people did not count at all towards your states EV votes.

As it was designed by the Founders so that the less populated states would not be subject to the tyranny of a few highly populated states.

 

[rightwinger]

Think about it, in your state your vote and that of 4.4 million other people did not count at all towards your states EV votes.

As it was designed by the Founders so that the less populated states would not be subject to the tyranny of a few highly populated states.

Tyranny is in the eye of the beholder

Some would look at minority rule as tyranny

 

[FA_Q2]

It is not suppressing the entire state, some of the state will have voted for the winner of the popular vote.

I would say that our current system of winner take all for EC votes does just as much to suppress votes. Think about it, in your state your vote and that of 4.4 million other people did not count at all towards your states EV votes.

why do you keep posting that stupid meme every time I talk about the winner take all system. I am not talking about getting rid of the EC.

are you really this fucking stupid...no wait...do not answer.

I for one haven’t seen your amazing plan to install a popular vote option while keeping the EC. Spell that scenario out for me.

Until then the meme is correct.

There is one in the op....

I do not agree with that one either, to me it is worse than what we have now

I can't see how it is worse than what we have. I don't have a problem with the president being elected by national vote - they are supposed to represent the nation as a whole and having the nation as a whole elect them seems perfectly reasonable. The senate is where the states are supposed to be represented and where those smaller states have power. As it stands in the system right now, the vast majority of people and states have exactly zero influence on the president. California and Texas have zero influence along with every single other solid blue or red state. How would a popular vote be worse than deciding the election based on 10% of the voters?

 

[FA_Q2]

WTF kind of math we’re you taught? Majority vote is exactly that, 50% +1. If we switch to that system we will have 48 states being ruled over by two. It’s what is happening in states like Oregon. One or two percent of the counties are making the rules for the other 98 percent.

in Oregon 19% of the counties voted for Clinton, and those 19% of the counties hold 52% of the population. Land does not vote, people do.

But there is a solution to your problem above, get rid of the winner take all. Maine has the right idea....two electoral votes to the popular vote winner, and then one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district. This way more votes count.

Why not by county? Let’s get as close to local control as possible. Divide a states EC up by the number of counties and apportion then that way.

Just a terrible idea the more I think about it. The smallest county in Oregon has 530 times less people than the biggest and you want them to have equal votes? What a crock.

This is why the partisans think it is a good idea. Logic and reason be dammed, only party victory matters.

 

[Rustic]

Socialism

You would know socialism if they sent you a SS or unemployment check.

Lol
I have no use for such things

 

[WTH_Progs?]

More bizarro world shit from Democrats.
“Republicans are assholes for suppressing black voters...but we think it’s okay to suppress an entire state”
National Popular Vote Interstate Compact - Wikipedia

Progs are tarded is all. Imagine if they were tasked to do something useful.

 

[Rustic]

The divide in this country is not race and/or financial, it’s urban and rural.
The two will never have the same needs, wants and interests.

BTW Getting along is way overrated

Urbanites are 80% of the population. You may want to consider getting along.

Lol

When did he come back from the dead?

Lol
Irrelevant

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Think about it, in your state your vote and that of 4.4 million other people did not count at all towards your states EV votes.

As it was designed by the Founders so that the less populated states would not be subject to the tyranny of a few highly populated states.

The founding father did not design the winner take all system, they created the EC. The latter does not require the former.

 

[g5000]

Those who say people's rights are being taken away don't seem to know how the Electoral College works.

Presently 21 states don't require their electors to vote in accordance with their own state's popular vote. And for the other 29 states that do bind their electors to the popular vote, those who know the Constitution better than I do say the only recourse the state has over these so-called "faithless" electors is a minor fine.

Rights are a zero-sum game. If you want more rights they have to be taken from someone else.

Say WHAT?!?!?

That's about the stupidest thing said in this topic so far!

"Darn it, not letting me lock up these homos is trampling my rights!"

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

WTF kind of math we’re you taught? Majority vote is exactly that, 50% +1. If we switch to that system we will have 48 states being ruled over by two. It’s what is happening in states like Oregon. One or two percent of the counties are making the rules for the other 98 percent.

in Oregon 19% of the counties voted for Clinton, and those 19% of the counties hold 52% of the population. Land does not vote, people do.

But there is a solution to your problem above, get rid of the winner take all. Maine has the right idea....two electoral votes to the popular vote winner, and then one electoral vote to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district. This way more votes count.

Why not by county? Let’s get as close to local control as possible. Divide a states EC up by the number of counties and apportion then that way.

Just a terrible idea the more I think about it. The smallest county in Oregon has 530 times less people than the biggest and you want them to have equal votes? What a crock.

This is why the partisans think it is a good idea. Logic and reason be dammed, only party victory matters.

That also supports Gator's reasoning that the Maine/Nebraska models are better.

I know that it is counties v. districts, but that is a serious disparity.

.