Nevada to join National Popular Vote compact

[bodecea]

Classic straw man argument Meister just made. However, I've already discovered he doesn't know what a straw man argument is.

You still haven't figured it out, darling. Make up another one of your scenarios for the win.

The Bill up for a vote won't fly in the courts and I really doubt with most level headed voters, either.

Per usual you have completely failed to make a point. Where in the constitution does it say that the states must distribute their ec votes?

Why do you have no idea how this works, mod? The NVC is not new

We'll have a wait and see in the courts, won't we? Now run along and fetch me a sammich, darling.

Fascinating...having a mod calling names and making misogynist comments. How nice.

I'm posting as a poster.....just like you, darling. Report the post if it's in violation of board rules.

Oh, that's right. I forgot that leading by example is no longer a thing for CRCs.

 

[Claudette]

That's nice. Suppose the voters all vote for one candidate and the State award the votes to the other. They would totally disenfranchise the voters in their State.

Give me a past exmaple where California's votes would have gone ot the popular vote winner even though California voted for the other candidate. Have fun.

So far all we have is the electoral college picking the loser, twice within 20 years.

Look it up yourself.

It's never happened, at least not in over 100 years. However twice the popular vote winner which California voted for lost the electoral college. But you guys don't care about that.

I'm a firm believer in the EC.

If not for the EC all elections would be decided by California, New York and the other high population states.

Less populous states votes wouldn't count at all.

So you are against the people deciding on our President.

Nope. I'm against having a few States deciding elections.

 

[bodecea]

Why are Republicans so upset by this?

Don’t they think they can win the popular vote anymore?

One has to wonder.

What I am really worried about is this backfiring on progressives. Say you do get it passed, and it makes people in "Dead if Red" States vote more. So if the Republican wins the popular vote, and California and NY have to throw their EC's to them, you don't think those States are going to try to back out of the compact before the EV's are counted?

If you morons want a civil war to happen, I can't think of a better way to trigger it.

Yes...in other words it's totally fair because it can work both ways...............unlike the current gerrymandering being done by the GOP in many states.....

 

[BrokeLoser]

That's nice. Suppose the voters all vote for one candidate and the State award the votes to the other. They would totally disenfranchise the voters in their State.

Give me a past exmaple where California's votes would have gone ot the popular vote winner even though California voted for the other candidate. Have fun.

So far all we have is the electoral college picking the loser, twice within 20 years.

Look it up yourself.

It's never happened, at least not in over 100 years. However twice the popular vote winner which California voted for lost the electoral college. But you guys don't care about that.

I'm a firm believer in the EC.

If not for the EC all elections would be decided by California, New York and the other high population states.

Less populous states votes wouldn't count at all.

So you are against the people deciding on our President.

Real Americans are against the wetbacks in Mexifornia deciding our President...Weird huh?

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

That's nice. Suppose the voters all vote for one candidate and the State award the votes to the other. They would totally disenfranchise the voters in their State.

Give me a past exmaple where California's votes would have gone ot the popular vote winner even though California voted for the other candidate. Have fun.

So far all we have is the electoral college picking the loser, twice within 20 years.

Look it up yourself.

It's never happened, at least not in over 100 years. However twice the popular vote winner which California voted for lost the electoral college. But you guys don't care about that.

I'm a firm believer in the EC.

If not for the EC all elections would be decided by California, New York and the other high population states.

Less populous states votes wouldn't count at all.

So you are against the people deciding on our President.

The EC is ment to protect the vote of ALL people not just the big cities.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I'm against having a few States deciding elections.

Then you must have HATED the 2016 election, as, by the same logic, it was decided by 4 COUNTIES.

 

[bodecea]

Give me a past exmaple where California's votes would have gone ot the popular vote winner even though California voted for the other candidate. Have fun.

So far all we have is the electoral college picking the loser, twice within 20 years.

Look it up yourself.

It's never happened, at least not in over 100 years. However twice the popular vote winner which California voted for lost the electoral college. But you guys don't care about that.

I'm a firm believer in the EC.

If not for the EC all elections would be decided by California, New York and the other high population states.

Less populous states votes wouldn't count at all.

So you are against the people deciding on our President.

Nope. I'm against having a few States deciding elections.

But you are ok with states with lots fewer CITIZENS being allowed to decide elections.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Is California and New York in on this? Of course eventually then the EC is moot point. Perhaps the deplorables can elect their own President and you can elect yours.

The popular vote is not moot
EVERY vote would be registered for each candidate
EVERY vote would count as one vote

I'm assuming that you want to take this country from a republic to a democracy, RW.
Five or six states can elect a president, and the rest of the states just has to pound sand?
Not being represented very well, IMO.

People will elect the President. Why are you perseverating on states as if they are people?

We will still be a republic.

No we wouldn't. You clearly don't understand the difference between a true democracy (mob rule and what you are advocating for) or our current system.

Yall can't make up your minds.....socialism, democracy, republic. Seems you change positions on the fly based on the subject at hand

Are we going to stop electing Senators and Representatives? No? Then it’s YOU who doesn’t know what a republic is. Every election but one is done by popular vote. If you don’t like this, pass an amendment taking away state’s right to allocate their electoral votes.

That's because the house and Senate have other protections and location specific guidelines ya moron.

 

[bodecea]

Give me a past exmaple where California's votes would have gone ot the popular vote winner even though California voted for the other candidate. Have fun.

So far all we have is the electoral college picking the loser, twice within 20 years.

Look it up yourself.

It's never happened, at least not in over 100 years. However twice the popular vote winner which California voted for lost the electoral college. But you guys don't care about that.

I'm a firm believer in the EC.

If not for the EC all elections would be decided by California, New York and the other high population states.

Less populous states votes wouldn't count at all.

So you are against the people deciding on our President.

The EC is ment to protect the vote of ALL people not just the big cities.

Did the MAJORITY of people in this country feel protected by the election of 2016?

 

[BlackFlag]

The popular vote is not moot
EVERY vote would be registered for each candidate
EVERY vote would count as one vote

I'm assuming that you want to take this country from a republic to a democracy, RW.
Five or six states can elect a president, and the rest of the states just has to pound sand?
Not being represented very well, IMO.

People will elect the President. Why are you perseverating on states as if they are people?

We will still be a republic.

No we wouldn't. You clearly don't understand the difference between a true democracy (mob rule and what you are advocating for) or our current system.

Yall can't make up your minds.....socialism, democracy, republic. Seems you change positions on the fly based on the subject at hand

Are we going to stop electing Senators and Representatives? No? Then it’s YOU who doesn’t know what a republic is. Every election but one is done by popular vote. If you don’t like this, pass an amendment taking away state’s right to allocate their electoral votes.

That's because the house and Senate have other protections and location specific guidelines ya moron.

Kind of like how the Constitution gives states the right to allocate their electoral votes however they please

 

[HappyJoy]

That's nice. Suppose the voters all vote for one candidate and the State award the votes to the other. They would totally disenfranchise the voters in their State.

Give me a past exmaple where California's votes would have gone ot the popular vote winner even though California voted for the other candidate. Have fun.

So far all we have is the electoral college picking the loser, twice within 20 years.

Look it up yourself.

It's never happened, at least not in over 100 years. However twice the popular vote winner which California voted for lost the electoral college. But you guys don't care about that.

I'm a firm believer in the EC.

If not for the EC all elections would be decided by California, New York and the other high population states.

Less populous states votes wouldn't count at all.

So you are against the people deciding on our President.

The only reason conservatives have power today is because they get a disproportionate amount of the vote. The EC benefits small mostly conservative states. That gives them a leg up on the executive branch.

Small states automatically get two senators regardless of how tiny their population is, the same representation for a state that can be 30 times larger. On top of that we have had many gerrymandered states that overwhelmingly favored Republicans, thankfully much of that mess is being corrected state by state. Take for example the 2018 election where Democrats won nationally by about 8.5 points, out doing even the huge waves Republicans had, however didn't get as many seats.

Because of the representative welfare small sates get that means more conservative judges and appointed.

So, of course they don't want to lose any of that control and purposefully play dumb about the Constitution.

 

[bodecea]

Why are Republicans so upset by this?

Don’t they think they can win the popular vote anymore?

One has to wonder.

What I am really worried about is this backfiring on progressives. Say you do get it passed, and it makes people in "Dead if Red" States vote more. So if the Republican wins the popular vote, and California and NY have to throw their EC's to them, you don't think those States are going to try to back out of the compact before the EV's are counted?

If you morons want a civil war to happen, I can't think of a better way to trigger it.

How ironic.....states rights and the CRCs have a cow against it this time.

 

[Flash]

No need to bother to vote in Nevada. The election will be determined by those Moon Bat and Illegal assholes in New York and California.

My as well go golfing on election day.

Determined by the majority. Republicans will have to stop villifying cities and their suburbs. It was good politics for Reagan to destroy the inner cities, it’s great politics for Trump to vilify our cities and Americans who live in them; it won’t be anymore.

Fuck the majority when the shitheads want to use the filthy oppressive government to steal you money or take away your liberties.

Democracy can be just as oppressive as any other form of government.

Our Founding Fathers knew that and the EC helps to mitigate that oppression a little bit.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Our Founding Fathers knew that and the EC helps to mitigate that oppression a little bit.

Yes, they envisioned a wholly unqualified and unfit person being chosen by the masses for all the wrong reasons, and the EC was meant to protect against that.

Obviously, it has failed in that design. Now we have President Pussyboy.

 

[Claudette]

Look it up yourself.

It's never happened, at least not in over 100 years. However twice the popular vote winner which California voted for lost the electoral college. But you guys don't care about that.

I'm a firm believer in the EC.

If not for the EC all elections would be decided by California, New York and the other high population states.

Less populous states votes wouldn't count at all.

So you are against the people deciding on our President.

Nope. I'm against having a few States deciding elections.

But you are ok with states with lots fewer CITIZENS being allowed to decide elections.

Nope. Without the EC they would never have a vote that counted

The EC just levels things out so that the populous States don't get to decide every election.

 

[HappyJoy]

Why are Republicans so upset by this?

Don’t they think they can win the popular vote anymore?

One has to wonder.

What I am really worried about is this backfiring on progressives. Say you do get it passed, and it makes people in "Dead if Red" States vote more. So if the Republican wins the popular vote, and California and NY have to throw their EC's to them, you don't think those States are going to try to back out of the compact before the EV's are counted?

If you morons want a civil war to happen, I can't think of a better way to trigger it.

How ironic.....states rights and the CRCs have a cow against it this time.

Conservatives only protect states rights for very specific circumstances, they usually involve taking away peoples' rights.

 

[HappyJoy]

It's never happened, at least not in over 100 years. However twice the popular vote winner which California voted for lost the electoral college. But you guys don't care about that.

I'm a firm believer in the EC.

If not for the EC all elections would be decided by California, New York and the other high population states.

Less populous states votes wouldn't count at all.

So you are against the people deciding on our President.

Nope. I'm against having a few States deciding elections.

But you are ok with states with lots fewer CITIZENS being allowed to decide elections.

Nope. Without the EC they would never have a vote that counted

The EC just levels things out so that the populous States don't get to decide every election.

No, they would have the same one person, one vote as everyone else.

 

[bodecea]

You bed wetters can't win according to the rules, so you have to change them.

It will fail as soon as it ends up in a court with non-bed wetter judges.

Seems Nevada along with the other idiot States who approve this don't know the Constitution.

They also want to disenfranchise their voters.

Won't be approved in court so they are wasting their time and money.

Seems you are the one who doesn’t know the Constitution
Show where it disallows it

Guess you aren't to bright.

What they are doing has nothing to do with The Constitution. So there is no allowing or not. However the EC is in the constitution.

That would be the 12th Amendment

All I hear from Conservatives is following the Constitution to the letter

However, when asked, you seem unable to provide those letters
The 12th amendment leaves it to the states
That is what the states are doing

The 14th forces them to guarantee "one man one vote" in their local elections and organizations.

This violates that by diluting the in State vote with people from out of the State.

And we still have one man (woman) one vote.

 

[Claudette]

I'm a firm believer in the EC.

If not for the EC all elections would be decided by California, New York and the other high population states.

Less populous states votes wouldn't count at all.

So you are against the people deciding on our President.

Nope. I'm against having a few States deciding elections.

But you are ok with states with lots fewer CITIZENS being allowed to decide elections.

Nope. Without the EC they would never have a vote that counted

The EC just levels things out so that the populous States don't get to decide every election.

No, they would have the same one person, one vote as everyone else.

Sure they would but the more populous States would decide every election by virtue of population.

 

[bodecea]

Further content-less troll posts and personal attacks will be reported.

That is fucking PRICELESS coming from one of the boards top trolls.

And he has posted TOPICAL content in every one of his posts. You're so damn stupid you don't even know what constitutes trolling.

Calling someone a commie and nothing else in a post is TOPICAL content? Enquiring minds want to know.