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.
LolI did a quick calculation and I came up to about 55 million people cast votes in states for a candidate that had zero chance to win that state (I used the winner taking more than 60% of the vote as my cutoff.)
With pure popular vote, Small population states like South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc. Would have no reason to vote in an presidential election, It would be pointless . They would lose every presidential election everytime… That’s just a fact
As it stands now voting for one party or the other in at least 30 states is pointless because their party has zero chance to win the state so their vote is meaningless. In the last election 55 million people voted knowing the person they voted for would not win the state, thus rendering their vote useless.
As I said, I do not wish to get rid of the EC, I want to get rid of the winner take all system.
It's winner take all in every election. Why not the presidency?
it is pure democracy in every other election, why not the presidency?
Why do you seek to disenfranchise voters in 47 states, Comrade?
Oh that's right, you're a Communist, you support authoritarian dictatorship.
There is a democrat representative in Ohio who also threw his hat in the ring to run for Prez in 2020. Getting rid of the EC is his idea and not the majority of Ohioans. DeWine is the new GOP governor of Ohio and Ohio remains solid GOP.
No. It’s in the amendment
Quote it!
You couldn't find your ass with both hands, much less anything in the Constitution! You flushed your copy long ago!
The word militia is in the amendment.
Unless you think the framers are just adding in words for shits and giggles, the word "militia" means something.
Feel free to google the amendment.
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
LOL
Typical lame-ass libtard response! I hope you are laughing at your own ineptitude.
Quote it!
You couldn't find your ass with both hands, much less anything in the Constitution! You flushed your copy long ago!
The word militia is in the amendment.
Unless you think the framers are just adding in words for shits and giggles, the word "militia" means something.
Feel free to google the amendment.
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
LOL
Typical lame-ass libtard response! I hope you are laughing at your own ineptitude.
More or less laughing at the lame attempt. Much like your last date; right?
No. It’s in the amendmentThis is a lie.
Quote it!
You couldn't find your ass with both hands, much less anything in the Constitution! You flushed your copy long ago!
The word militia is in the amendment.
Unless you think the framers are just adding in words for shits and giggles, the word "militia" means something.
Feel free to google the amendment.
Where does it say your're supposed to be in the military to own firearms?
I just want to know why you libtards refuse to learn to read? I am firmly convinced that liberalism is caused by a learning disability. Your brain wiring is all hosed up!
The word militia is in the amendment.
Unless you think the framers are just adding in words for shits and giggles, the word "militia" means something.
Feel free to google the amendment.
LolYou must live in a state where your vote counts for something.That is absolutely NOT TRUE. You have no understanding of this republic
I did a quick calculation and I came up to about 55 million people cast votes in states for a candidate that had zero chance to win that state (I used the winner taking more than 60% of the vote as my cutoff.)
With pure popular vote, Small population states like South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc. Would have no reason to vote in an presidential election, It would be pointless . They would lose every presidential election everytime… That’s just a fact
Without the EC, California and New York decide EVERY election. No other state need bother to vote.
In the last election, Cali and New York accounted for only 16% of the votes cast, that is not enough to overcome the rest of the states
LolYou must live in a state where your vote counts for something.
I did a quick calculation and I came up to about 55 million people cast votes in states for a candidate that had zero chance to win that state (I used the winner taking more than 60% of the vote as my cutoff.)
With pure popular vote, Small population states like South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, etc. Would have no reason to vote in an presidential election, It would be pointless . They would lose every presidential election everytime… That’s just a fact
Without the EC, California and New York decide EVERY election. No other state need bother to vote.
In the last election, Cali and New York accounted for only 16% of the votes cast, that is not enough to overcome the rest of the states
Troll much?
That's already 84.
.
There is a democrat representative in Ohio who also threw his hat in the ring to run for Prez in 2020. Getting rid of the EC is his idea and not the majority of Ohioans. DeWine is the new GOP governor of Ohio and Ohio remains solid GOP.
Maybe, but DeWine is also a RINO. I'm sure he wouldn't approve of this, but he's hardly what I would call a conservatives conservative.
The electoral college was born of slave owners to protect slavery from the abolitionist north. It's origins are tainted and it's original purpose no longer exists. People like to explain that it protects rural voters from irrelevance but what it really does is make minority party votes worthless. If you vote democrat in a red state or republican in a blue state your vote has probably never counted. I want my vote to count.
Ohioans might vote to ditch Electoral College. Who's behind the effort? That's a mystery
DemNazis...
If you cannot win fair, you need to change The Rules so you can cheat!
We are in a Civil War.
And The Dems are Invading this country from The Southern Border and attacking our Constitution in our courts and legislatures.
That is absolutely NOT TRUE. You have no understanding of this republicThe electoral college was born of slave owners to protect slavery from the abolitionist north. It's origins are tainted and it's original purpose no longer exists. People like to explain that it protects rural voters from irrelevance but what it really does is make minority party votes worthless. If you vote democrat in a red state or republican in a blue state your vote has probably never counted. I want my vote to count.
The last sentence from him is correct.
In the state i live in, 2.1 million people vote for Trump and 209,000 voted for Johnson. Both voters had the same impact on the election, both groups of voters accounted for the exact same number of electrical votes...zero
In Texas 3.8 million people voted for Hillary and 283,000 voted for Johnson. Both voters had the same impact on the election, both groups of voters accounted for the exact same number of electrical votes...zero
This is an inherent weakness with the EC but more with the winner take all system that we have.
Keep in mind. The Electoral College was part of a system of the original 13 colonies.
Also keep in mind that women could not vote until 1921.
The EC does not fit in 2019, with 50 states, and 325 million people, in which the population centers that make up for 3/4 of the entire GDP of a $20 trillion economy.
No historical, or Constitutional argument can be made that continues to support the Electoral College. This is no longer an ideological debate.
Sure there is, your opinion just happens to be the wrong one. Don't like the system, amend the Constitution and good luck with that one. Until that time, the electoral college is here to stay be it 13 states or 57.
Vacant land does not voteI hadn't thought of that before. The impact of decisions that affect states. It's a good point, and I appreciate that insight.But, the electors are supposed to vote with the majority of their state, not the nation. Anything less than that, then there would be no need to even choose electors, as the electoral votes would already be decided by national popular vote.It's amusing you're still leaning on that crutch of "red states" and "blue states", an artificial concept that literally does not exist in the real world, as if it were something real. The only reason it even exists as an abstract is the WTA system. In actual reality there has never been, and there never will be, any state anywhere that votes unanimously for a POTUS (or for a governor or Senator either). That world literally does not exist. Yet there's the electors of 48 states going in front of Congress and lying about what their state selected, every. single. time.
You don't have a "red" state or a "blue" state. You have a purple state, same as the rest of us. The bottom line is, if WTA was not infecting the entire system, then this NPV compact would be unnecessary and would not even exist.
But when you do have an artificially "red" or "blue" state, because WTA does exist, THAT is a disenfranchisement of voters. But it's *STILL* not "against the US Constitution". AGAIN go ahead and show us that part of the COTUS that prohibits it. You can't do it. Doesn't exist.
I think "faithless elector" laws should all be struck down as unConstitutional too. If you're going to appoint an elector --- and then turn around and order them to vote a certain way ---- then what the fuck is the function of an elector at all? The whole idea of an elector was to consider and ruminate. If a state removes that function, THERE you have something against the US Constitution.
A faithless elector is one who does vote against the popular vote or for the party that nominated them regardless of the outcome. Some states do have penalties against faithless electors by fines or even nullifying their vote. Everybody should have that, perhaps even prison time.
I have no idea what a WTA is. I understand you're an American, and as such, get way too much exercise, but for once, try spelling it out.
So what are the electors lying about that the Congress is unaware of? The popular vote decided where the electoral votes will go to. Nothing dishonest about that. A majority of states use that system. It's no different than when you vote for a Senator or House representative. Majority rules. And if you think the minority are somehow not getting their vote counted, that's the way a majority system works.
I'm actually torn on this subject because I see how both methods are good and bad.
I understand that electoral college means smaller population states have a voice. I also see that, people say if you went with popular vote that New York and California would decide every election. It's not about geographical location, it's about population density. Yes, we would probably go blue every time, but that's only because New York and California have more people that those smaller populated states.
Again, "states" dont choose presidents, people do. Under the current system, more voices go unheard, because in many states, whoever wins the majority get all of the electoral votes. Take California for example. If dems win that state where 52% of the vote was blue and the other 48% was red, all of California's 54 electoral votes go to one candidate, which means the voice of those other 48% no longer matters.
Under a popular vote, every vote matters and it would mean candidates would have to work harder to earn those votes.
One thing is for sure, I do not agree with the way the left is going about this. If they want a popular vote, they need to attempt it by going about it the right way, and not trying to side step the current system.
Well I think the founders did want states to vote and not individuals. That was the idea behind the electoral college. But remember, the President of the United States is more than the leader of the people, he is also the leader of the land as well.
Let's say the President wants to run an oil line across the US like the Keystone. He has to consider the political impact of the states that line is going to go through. Or perhaps if we start running out of places for our garbage. You wouldn't want NYC trash hauled to your state because the population there is only 700,000 people and their vote is meaningless. How about if we expand our nuclear power plants and need new space for nuclear waste?
If we had popular vote and a major war broke out where the draft had to be re-instituted, why not have the draft board take people from those lowest populated states? Don't piss off those people in New York or Texas! Let them stay at home and vote for me!
I think I see now what they mean when they say states choose presidents. Each state has to have a voice in the matter so they can represent their land, and the choices made about that land from a federal perspective.
More so, a voice about federal laws, and taxation and such.
It does make the popular vote less appealing when you think that cali and NY would have major role, more than a small state like RI.
Since you have a higher population of dems across the country than repubs, a popular vote would mean people living in west and east coast states would have more impact on the lives of people living in southern states and middle America.
I was just going off of a majority rule type thing. My thought process was wrapped around, if more people want candidate A, then why should fewer people be able to override them.
I can understand that sentiment, but when it comes from the left, I know it's purely about power.
Here is a map of last election by county. Keep in mind that Trump didn't sweep the country by any stretch of the imagination. He simply had more electoral votes.
Left up to the popular vote, those small blue sections would have power over the entire country red or blue.
View attachment 254516
The Constitution doesn't even mention political partiesThat is absolutely NOT TRUE. You have no understanding of this republicThe electoral college was born of slave owners to protect slavery from the abolitionist north. It's origins are tainted and it's original purpose no longer exists. People like to explain that it protects rural voters from irrelevance but what it really does is make minority party votes worthless. If you vote democrat in a red state or republican in a blue state your vote has probably never counted. I want my vote to count.
The last sentence from him is correct.
In the state i live in, 2.1 million people vote for Trump and 209,000 voted for Johnson. Both voters had the same impact on the election, both groups of voters accounted for the exact same number of electrical votes...zero
In Texas 3.8 million people voted for Hillary and 283,000 voted for Johnson. Both voters had the same impact on the election, both groups of voters accounted for the exact same number of electrical votes...zero
This is an inherent weakness with the EC but more with the winner take all system that we have.
Keep in mind. The Electoral College was part of a system of the original 13 colonies.
Also keep in mind that women could not vote until 1921.
The EC does not fit in 2019, with 50 states, and 325 million people, in which the population centers that make up for 3/4 of the entire GDP of a $20 trillion economy.
No historical, or Constitutional argument can be made that continues to support the Electoral College. This is no longer an ideological debate.
Sure there is, your opinion just happens to be the wrong one. Don't like the system, amend the Constitution and good luck with that one. Until that time, the electoral college is here to stay be it 13 states or 57.
But is there anything in the constitution that a state cannot have its electors vote for whomever wins the popular vote?
I havent seen that. In fact I believe the Constitution says it's up to the state to choose their electors. And like with Maine and Nebraska they can choose how their electors vote.
Vacant land does not vote
People vote
That is absolutely NOT TRUE. You have no understanding of this republicThe electoral college was born of slave owners to protect slavery from the abolitionist north. It's origins are tainted and it's original purpose no longer exists. People like to explain that it protects rural voters from irrelevance but what it really does is make minority party votes worthless. If you vote democrat in a red state or republican in a blue state your vote has probably never counted. I want my vote to count.
The last sentence from him is correct.
In the state i live in, 2.1 million people vote for Trump and 209,000 voted for Johnson. Both voters had the same impact on the election, both groups of voters accounted for the exact same number of electrical votes...zero
In Texas 3.8 million people voted for Hillary and 283,000 voted for Johnson. Both voters had the same impact on the election, both groups of voters accounted for the exact same number of electrical votes...zero
This is an inherent weakness with the EC but more with the winner take all system that we have.
Keep in mind. The Electoral College was part of a system of the original 13 colonies.
Also keep in mind that women could not vote until 1921.
The EC does not fit in 2019, with 50 states, and 325 million people, in which the population centers that make up for 3/4 of the entire GDP of a $20 trillion economy.
No historical, or Constitutional argument can be made that continues to support the Electoral College. This is no longer an ideological debate.
Sure there is, your opinion just happens to be the wrong one. Don't like the system, amend the Constitution and good luck with that one. Until that time, the electoral college is here to stay be it 13 states or 57.
But is there anything in the constitution that a state cannot have its electors vote for whomever wins the popular vote?
I havent seen that. In fact I believe the Constitution says it's up to the state to choose their electors. And like with Maine and Nebraska they can choose how their electors vote.
Vacant land does not voteI hadn't thought of that before. The impact of decisions that affect states. It's a good point, and I appreciate that insight.But, the electors are supposed to vote with the majority of their state, not the nation. Anything less than that, then there would be no need to even choose electors, as the electoral votes would already be decided by national popular vote.A faithless elector is one who does vote against the popular vote or for the party that nominated them regardless of the outcome. Some states do have penalties against faithless electors by fines or even nullifying their vote. Everybody should have that, perhaps even prison time.
I have no idea what a WTA is. I understand you're an American, and as such, get way too much exercise, but for once, try spelling it out.
So what are the electors lying about that the Congress is unaware of? The popular vote decided where the electoral votes will go to. Nothing dishonest about that. A majority of states use that system. It's no different than when you vote for a Senator or House representative. Majority rules. And if you think the minority are somehow not getting their vote counted, that's the way a majority system works.
I'm actually torn on this subject because I see how both methods are good and bad.
I understand that electoral college means smaller population states have a voice. I also see that, people say if you went with popular vote that New York and California would decide every election. It's not about geographical location, it's about population density. Yes, we would probably go blue every time, but that's only because New York and California have more people that those smaller populated states.
Again, "states" dont choose presidents, people do. Under the current system, more voices go unheard, because in many states, whoever wins the majority get all of the electoral votes. Take California for example. If dems win that state where 52% of the vote was blue and the other 48% was red, all of California's 54 electoral votes go to one candidate, which means the voice of those other 48% no longer matters.
Under a popular vote, every vote matters and it would mean candidates would have to work harder to earn those votes.
One thing is for sure, I do not agree with the way the left is going about this. If they want a popular vote, they need to attempt it by going about it the right way, and not trying to side step the current system.
Well I think the founders did want states to vote and not individuals. That was the idea behind the electoral college. But remember, the President of the United States is more than the leader of the people, he is also the leader of the land as well.
Let's say the President wants to run an oil line across the US like the Keystone. He has to consider the political impact of the states that line is going to go through. Or perhaps if we start running out of places for our garbage. You wouldn't want NYC trash hauled to your state because the population there is only 700,000 people and their vote is meaningless. How about if we expand our nuclear power plants and need new space for nuclear waste?
If we had popular vote and a major war broke out where the draft had to be re-instituted, why not have the draft board take people from those lowest populated states? Don't piss off those people in New York or Texas! Let them stay at home and vote for me!
I think I see now what they mean when they say states choose presidents. Each state has to have a voice in the matter so they can represent their land, and the choices made about that land from a federal perspective.
More so, a voice about federal laws, and taxation and such.
It does make the popular vote less appealing when you think that cali and NY would have major role, more than a small state like RI.
Since you have a higher population of dems across the country than repubs, a popular vote would mean people living in west and east coast states would have more impact on the lives of people living in southern states and middle America.
I was just going off of a majority rule type thing. My thought process was wrapped around, if more people want candidate A, then why should fewer people be able to override them.
I can understand that sentiment, but when it comes from the left, I know it's purely about power.
Here is a map of last election by county. Keep in mind that Trump didn't sweep the country by any stretch of the imagination. He simply had more electoral votes.
Left up to the popular vote, those small blue sections would have power over the entire country red or blue.
View attachment 254516
People vote
Those blue areas are where the people are
