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

[BlindBoo]

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.

Since we know pure democracy is tyranny how do you suggest we do it?

We'd simply be directly electing our representative as a whole nation. Still a Constitutional Republic, not a tyrannical democracy where 50%+1 rules.

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.

How about this suggestion. Let’s all just meet in the middle of Kansas every four years and have a gun fight. Whoever is better armed wins and gets to rule for four years.

Fuck that. I say we bring some women and have a mud wrestling contest. Every year....

Seriously, how would directly electing a president cause the structure of our government to fall prey to the tyranny of democracy? We'd still have Congress, the Executive and the Courts.

No we wouldn’t. The congress would be hamstrung by the wishes of a president. Especially if they know they will have power no matter what. Judicial positions just go empty until the president decides maybe he should just be the judge.

You don’t have to look far for examples of how this works out.

So the GOP would just give up on winning the presidency because of a nationwide popular election instead of the EC?

In my dreams!

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Since we know pure democracy is tyranny how do you suggest we do it?

We'd simply be directly electing our representative as a whole nation. Still a Constitutional Republic, not a tyrannical democracy where 50%+1 rules.

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.

How about this suggestion. Let’s all just meet in the middle of Kansas every four years and have a gun fight. Whoever is better armed wins and gets to rule for four years.

Fuck that. I say we bring some women and have a mud wrestling contest. Every year....

Seriously, how would directly electing a president cause the structure of our government to fall prey to the tyranny of democracy? We'd still have Congress, the Executive and the Courts.

No we wouldn’t. The congress would be hamstrung by the wishes of a president. Especially if they know they will have power no matter what. Judicial positions just go empty until the president decides maybe he should just be the judge.

You don’t have to look far for examples of how this works out.

So the GOP would just give up on winning the presidency because of a nationwide popular election instead of the EC?

In my dreams!

I think it would force politicians to the center.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

because counties are not equal, most congressional districts have close to the same number of people. Why should a county with 200 total people get the same say as a county with a million people? Land does not vote, people do.

Because land use should get a vote. Just because yours is filled with high rise slum apartments doesn’t make your concerns out weigh what the neighboring county growing your food is concerned about. That’s the beauty of the EC. Just because your packed city wants something doesn’t mean the rest of us have to make it our problem. I wouldn’t be caught dead in one of those cities, why should I have to play by their rules?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

Yeah they get an equal vote. WTF do I care you chose to live with 530 people. That’s not my problem.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

because counties are not equal, most congressional districts have close to the same number of people. Why should a county with 200 total people get the same say as a county with a million people? Land does not vote, people do.

Because land use should get a vote. Just because yours is filled with high rise slum apartments doesn’t make your concerns out weigh what the neighboring county growing your food is concerned about. That’s the beauty of the EC. Just because your packed city wants something doesn’t mean the rest of us have to make it our problem. I wouldn’t be caught dead in one of those cities, why should I have to play by their rules?

You choose to be an outlier. Suck it up.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

because counties are not equal, most congressional districts have close to the same number of people. Why should a county with 200 total people get the same say as a county with a million people? Land does not vote, people do.

Because land use should get a vote. Just because yours is filled with high rise slum apartments doesn’t make your concerns out weigh what the neighboring county growing your food is concerned about. That’s the beauty of the EC. Just because your packed city wants something doesn’t mean the rest of us have to make it our problem. I wouldn’t be caught dead in one of those cities, why should I have to play by their rules?

Once again, land does not vote, people vote. Land is an inanimate object with no way to vote. You should not get extra votes just because you hate people and live in the middle of nowhere.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

We'd simply be directly electing our representative as a whole nation. Still a Constitutional Republic, not a tyrannical democracy where 50%+1 rules.

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.

How about this suggestion. Let’s all just meet in the middle of Kansas every four years and have a gun fight. Whoever is better armed wins and gets to rule for four years.

Fuck that. I say we bring some women and have a mud wrestling contest. Every year....

Seriously, how would directly electing a president cause the structure of our government to fall prey to the tyranny of democracy? We'd still have Congress, the Executive and the Courts.

No we wouldn’t. The congress would be hamstrung by the wishes of a president. Especially if they know they will have power no matter what. Judicial positions just go empty until the president decides maybe he should just be the judge.

You don’t have to look far for examples of how this works out.

So the GOP would just give up on winning the presidency because of a nationwide popular election instead of the EC?

In my dreams!

I think it would force politicians to the center.

You’re an idiot. The free shit brigade will go so far beyond the stupid they are now it would be ridiculous.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

Yeah they get an equal vote. WTF do I care you chose to live with 530 people. That’s not my problem.

And I thought you were a Conservative. Silly me

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

How about this suggestion. Let’s all just meet in the middle of Kansas every four years and have a gun fight. Whoever is better armed wins and gets to rule for four years.

Fuck that. I say we bring some women and have a mud wrestling contest. Every year....

Seriously, how would directly electing a president cause the structure of our government to fall prey to the tyranny of democracy? We'd still have Congress, the Executive and the Courts.

No we wouldn’t. The congress would be hamstrung by the wishes of a president. Especially if they know they will have power no matter what. Judicial positions just go empty until the president decides maybe he should just be the judge.

You don’t have to look far for examples of how this works out.

So the GOP would just give up on winning the presidency because of a nationwide popular election instead of the EC?

In my dreams!

I think it would force politicians to the center.

You’re an idiot. The free shit brigade will go so far beyond the stupid they are now it would be ridiculous.

That's right. It will force you kooks back to the margins where you belong.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

because counties are not equal, most congressional districts have close to the same number of people. Why should a county with 200 total people get the same say as a county with a million people? Land does not vote, people do.

Because land use should get a vote. Just because yours is filled with high rise slum apartments doesn’t make your concerns out weigh what the neighboring county growing your food is concerned about. That’s the beauty of the EC. Just because your packed city wants something doesn’t mean the rest of us have to make it our problem. I wouldn’t be caught dead in one of those cities, why should I have to play by their rules?

Once again, land does not vote, people vote. Land is an inanimate object with no way to vote. You should not get extra votes just because you hate people and live in the middle of nowhere.

Of course land votes. More accurately land use votes. In your county with 530 more people to each one person in the other who is providing the food? The lumber for housing? The gas for your heat? The burgers for your bbq?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

because counties are not equal, most congressional districts have close to the same number of people. Why should a county with 200 total people get the same say as a county with a million people? Land does not vote, people do.

Because land use should get a vote. Just because yours is filled with high rise slum apartments doesn’t make your concerns out weigh what the neighboring county growing your food is concerned about. That’s the beauty of the EC. Just because your packed city wants something doesn’t mean the rest of us have to make it our problem. I wouldn’t be caught dead in one of those cities, why should I have to play by their rules?

Once again, land does not vote, people vote. Land is an inanimate object with no way to vote. You should not get extra votes just because you hate people and live in the middle of nowhere.

Of course land votes. More accurately land use votes. In your county with 530 more people to each one person in the other who is providing the food? The lumber for housing? The gas for your heat? The burgers for your bbq?

Food does not vote, lumber does not vote, gas does not vote...PEOPLE vote.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

Yeah they get an equal vote. WTF do I care you chose to live with 530 people. That’s not my problem.

And I thought you were a Conservative. Silly me

What could possibly more conservative than that? You go move into an apartment high rise with 530 of your closest friends. I DGAF. Leave me out of your stupid ideas about how I should live because I chose not to move there.

You had better take an inventory of your own conservative stances.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

Yeah they get an equal vote. WTF do I care you chose to live with 530 people. That’s not my problem.

And I thought you were a Conservative. Silly me

What could possibly more conservative than that? You go move into an apartment high rise with 530 of your closest friends. I DGAF. Leave me out of your stupid ideas about how I should live because I chose not to move there.

You had better take an inventory of your own conservative stances.

I am not telling you where to live, I am telling you that your vote does not mean more because you choose to live in BFE.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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.

because counties are not equal, most congressional districts have close to the same number of people. Why should a county with 200 total people get the same say as a county with a million people? Land does not vote, people do.

Because land use should get a vote. Just because yours is filled with high rise slum apartments doesn’t make your concerns out weigh what the neighboring county growing your food is concerned about. That’s the beauty of the EC. Just because your packed city wants something doesn’t mean the rest of us have to make it our problem. I wouldn’t be caught dead in one of those cities, why should I have to play by their rules?

Once again, land does not vote, people vote. Land is an inanimate object with no way to vote. You should not get extra votes just because you hate people and live in the middle of nowhere.

Of course land votes. More accurately land use votes. In your county with 530 more people to each one person in the other who is providing the food? The lumber for housing? The gas for your heat? The burgers for your bbq?

So a rancher in Montana that owns 1000 acres should get, how many votes in your estimation?

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

because counties are not equal, most congressional districts have close to the same number of people. Why should a county with 200 total people get the same say as a county with a million people? Land does not vote, people do.

Because land use should get a vote. Just because yours is filled with high rise slum apartments doesn’t make your concerns out weigh what the neighboring county growing your food is concerned about. That’s the beauty of the EC. Just because your packed city wants something doesn’t mean the rest of us have to make it our problem. I wouldn’t be caught dead in one of those cities, why should I have to play by their rules?

Once again, land does not vote, people vote. Land is an inanimate object with no way to vote. You should not get extra votes just because you hate people and live in the middle of nowhere.

Of course land votes. More accurately land use votes. In your county with 530 more people to each one person in the other who is providing the food? The lumber for housing? The gas for your heat? The burgers for your bbq?

Food does not vote, lumber does not vote, gas does not vote...PEOPLE vote.

LMAO! Fuck it doesn’t. Get your pure democracy in place and then sit there and wonder where the food is as you’re voting for politicians to give you more of what you voted to get rid of.

Christ, Venezuela taught you nothing.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

Yeah they get an equal vote. WTF do I care you chose to live with 530 people. That’s not my problem.

And I thought you were a Conservative. Silly me

What could possibly more conservative than that? You go move into an apartment high rise with 530 of your closest friends. I DGAF. Leave me out of your stupid ideas about how I should live because I chose not to move there.

You had better take an inventory of your own conservative stances.

I am not telling you where to live, I am telling you that your vote does not mean more because you choose to live in BFE.

I never said it should count as more. The EC just makes it equal.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

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.

because counties are not equal, most congressional districts have close to the same number of people. Why should a county with 200 total people get the same say as a county with a million people? Land does not vote, people do.

Because land use should get a vote. Just because yours is filled with high rise slum apartments doesn’t make your concerns out weigh what the neighboring county growing your food is concerned about. That’s the beauty of the EC. Just because your packed city wants something doesn’t mean the rest of us have to make it our problem. I wouldn’t be caught dead in one of those cities, why should I have to play by their rules?

Once again, land does not vote, people vote. Land is an inanimate object with no way to vote. You should not get extra votes just because you hate people and live in the middle of nowhere.

Of course land votes. More accurately land use votes. In your county with 530 more people to each one person in the other who is providing the food? The lumber for housing? The gas for your heat? The burgers for your bbq?

So a rancher in Montana that owns 1000 acres should get, how many votes in your estimation?

One, and Montana gets enough EC votes to balance their wishes with California in choosing a president.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

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.

Yeah they get an equal vote. WTF do I care you chose to live with 530 people. That’s not my problem.

And I thought you were a Conservative. Silly me

What could possibly more conservative than that? You go move into an apartment high rise with 530 of your closest friends. I DGAF. Leave me out of your stupid ideas about how I should live because I chose not to move there.

You had better take an inventory of your own conservative stances.

I am not telling you where to live, I am telling you that your vote does not mean more because you choose to live in BFE.

I never said it should count as more. The EC just makes it equal.

Actually, the EC does not make it equal, the smaller the state the more their vote counts. A vote in Wyoming counts like 3 times a vote in Texas.

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

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Yeah they get an equal vote. WTF do I care you chose to live with 530 people. That’s not my problem.

And I thought you were a Conservative. Silly me

What could possibly more conservative than that? You go move into an apartment high rise with 530 of your closest friends. I DGAF. Leave me out of your stupid ideas about how I should live because I chose not to move there.

You had better take an inventory of your own conservative stances.

I am not telling you where to live, I am telling you that your vote does not mean more because you choose to live in BFE.

I never said it should count as more. The EC just makes it equal.

Actually, the EC does not make it equal, the smaller the state the more their vote counts. A vote in Wyoming counts like 3 times a vote in Texas.

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

Well then. Let’s Bernie the shit out of this system and make every state even. You get one EC per state.

 

[Rustic]

Our Founders did not want America to be a democracy. They rightly saw we needed to be a republic.

But directly electing the president will hardly change us from a Republic to a straight up Democracy either.

A pure popular vote makes for mob rule = shit eating democracy

Bullshit, one party or the other will still win, the sun will still rise in the east, toilets in the northern hemisphere will still....

Lol
Na, not really
Without the electoral college rural America would lose every single presidential election. Fact

Well they've lost most of their population to the metro's, why should they hold on to their political power? How long will they continue to disenfranchise the people living in the cities and burbs?

Lol
This is supposed to an republic, not a shit eating democracy.

We don’t want no stinking popularity contest for president... a pure popular vote is mob rule