Revisiting That Dirty Popular Vote Thing Again

[candycorn]

Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Exactly as it would work if no candidate gets 270 votes

That's not what you said. You said we should consider both, the EC and popular vote to make a decision.

Oh...

I assumed you were reading the other posts in the thread.

If no candidate wins both the plurality of the total votes cast AND 270 electoral votes, the 20th amendment takes over.

If the question is whether to have the PV or the EC, I say keep everything as it is. It’s fine as it is.

However if we really want to “make every vote count”, we need a system that actually does make every vote count. Mine does.

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

because it only comes up when you lose the overall election. they don't wish to change it because its more fair, they wish to change it cause they feel it's to their advantage.

same reason we have gerrymandering. people think it benefits them, so they want it.

quit trying to pretend everything the left does is for pure reasons why the right is all evil and these discussions wouldn't suck so much.

Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses

 

[iceberg]

That's not what you said. You said we should consider both, the EC and popular vote to make a decision.

Oh...

I assumed you were reading the other posts in the thread.

If no candidate wins both the plurality of the total votes cast AND 270 electoral votes, the 20th amendment takes over.

If the question is whether to have the PV or the EC, I say keep everything as it is. It’s fine as it is.

However if we really want to “make every vote count”, we need a system that actually does make every vote count. Mine does.

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

because it only comes up when you lose the overall election. they don't wish to change it because its more fair, they wish to change it cause they feel it's to their advantage.

same reason we have gerrymandering. people think it benefits them, so they want it.

quit trying to pretend everything the left does is for pure reasons why the right is all evil and these discussions wouldn't suck so much.

Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses

and it's just as ignorant.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So how would that work exactly? Please use the last presidential election as an example.

Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Exactly as it would work if no candidate gets 270 votes

That's not what you said. You said we should consider both, the EC and popular vote to make a decision.

Oh...

I assumed you were reading the other posts in the thread.

If no candidate wins both the plurality of the total votes cast AND 270 electoral votes, the 20th amendment takes over.

If the question is whether to have the PV or the EC, I say keep everything as it is. It’s fine as it is.

However if we really want to “make every vote count”, we need a system that actually does make every vote count. Mine does.

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

Changing our EC to PV would be mob rule. Only a few states would control the majority of states like what happened last election.

 

[candycorn]

Oh...

I assumed you were reading the other posts in the thread.

If no candidate wins both the plurality of the total votes cast AND 270 electoral votes, the 20th amendment takes over.

If the question is whether to have the PV or the EC, I say keep everything as it is. It’s fine as it is.

However if we really want to “make every vote count”, we need a system that actually does make every vote count. Mine does.

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

because it only comes up when you lose the overall election. they don't wish to change it because its more fair, they wish to change it cause they feel it's to their advantage.

same reason we have gerrymandering. people think it benefits them, so they want it.

quit trying to pretend everything the left does is for pure reasons why the right is all evil and these discussions wouldn't suck so much.

Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses

and it's just as ignorant.

So republicans are self serving and impure as well... right?

 

[Ame®icano]

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

"Many feel?"

LOL

That feeling is somehow always related to losing the elections: "we lost, we have to do something".

The electoral college protects the interests of smaller states, so their vote counts too. What's wrong with that?

OK, let me ask you this: should non citizens be counted by census towards state representation in Congress?

 

[iceberg]

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

because it only comes up when you lose the overall election. they don't wish to change it because its more fair, they wish to change it cause they feel it's to their advantage.

same reason we have gerrymandering. people think it benefits them, so they want it.

quit trying to pretend everything the left does is for pure reasons why the right is all evil and these discussions wouldn't suck so much.

Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses

and it's just as ignorant.

So republicans are self serving and impure as well... right?

would seem so, huh?

i'm not going to do what you and others tend to do - change my opinion based on who is doing an action. if an action is wrong, it's wrong. excuses are the bullshit that get trump elected.

it's assnugget ignorant to go wanting to change rules around for the sole reason you lost in a system that has been around for 250 years.

popular vote would be as others have said, mob rules. that is an ignorant assed short sighted way to do this.

 

[Ame®icano]

Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Exactly as it would work if no candidate gets 270 votes

That's not what you said. You said we should consider both, the EC and popular vote to make a decision.

Oh...

I assumed you were reading the other posts in the thread.

If no candidate wins both the plurality of the total votes cast AND 270 electoral votes, the 20th amendment takes over.

If the question is whether to have the PV or the EC, I say keep everything as it is. It’s fine as it is.

However if we really want to “make every vote count”, we need a system that actually does make every vote count. Mine does.

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

Some Republicans routinely favor getting rid of the EC when they lose


Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses

Correct... some. Notice I caught it before you deleted it.

Question for you, is what they're doing, or talking about doing, wrong?

 

[colfax_m]

Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

Exactly as it would work if no candidate gets 270 votes

That's not what you said. You said we should consider both, the EC and popular vote to make a decision.

Oh...

I assumed you were reading the other posts in the thread.

If no candidate wins both the plurality of the total votes cast AND 270 electoral votes, the 20th amendment takes over.

If the question is whether to have the PV or the EC, I say keep everything as it is. It’s fine as it is.

However if we really want to “make every vote count”, we need a system that actually does make every vote count. Mine does.

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

Changing our EC to PV would be mob rule. Only a few states would control the majority of states like what happened last election.

Mob rule? Is that a euphemism for having every vote count?

 

[iceberg]

That's not what you said. You said we should consider both, the EC and popular vote to make a decision.

Oh...

I assumed you were reading the other posts in the thread.

If no candidate wins both the plurality of the total votes cast AND 270 electoral votes, the 20th amendment takes over.

If the question is whether to have the PV or the EC, I say keep everything as it is. It’s fine as it is.

However if we really want to “make every vote count”, we need a system that actually does make every vote count. Mine does.

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

Changing our EC to PV would be mob rule. Only a few states would control the majority of states like what happened last election.

Mob rule? Is that a euphemism for having every vote count?

yet you are for states with less population to be held to standards in CA and TX simply because they carry the most people. the needs of one are not the needs of all and all needs should be represented when possible.

you act as if these "arguments" you and others have are new. that perhaps our forefathers missed something along the way. no. the very reason we have the EC is to prevent what you are wanting done.

you are not advocating a system for us all, you are advocating a system that makes you personally happy and pretending everyone else should be happy for the same reasons.

 

[Ame®icano]

That's not what you said. You said we should consider both, the EC and popular vote to make a decision.

Oh...

I assumed you were reading the other posts in the thread.

If no candidate wins both the plurality of the total votes cast AND 270 electoral votes, the 20th amendment takes over.

If the question is whether to have the PV or the EC, I say keep everything as it is. It’s fine as it is.

However if we really want to “make every vote count”, we need a system that actually does make every vote count. Mine does.

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

Changing our EC to PV would be mob rule. Only a few states would control the majority of states like what happened last election.

Mob rule? Is that a euphemism for having every vote count?

Every vote does count. Your state can do with it whatever they want.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That's not what you said. You said we should consider both, the EC and popular vote to make a decision.

Oh...

I assumed you were reading the other posts in the thread.

If no candidate wins both the plurality of the total votes cast AND 270 electoral votes, the 20th amendment takes over.

If the question is whether to have the PV or the EC, I say keep everything as it is. It’s fine as it is.

However if we really want to “make every vote count”, we need a system that actually does make every vote count. Mine does.

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

Changing our EC to PV would be mob rule. Only a few states would control the majority of states like what happened last election.

Mob rule? Is that a euphemism for having every vote count?

Let me ask again: Do you think it would be fair if two cities (not states) have more power than 12 entire states?

 

[hadit]

That's not what you said. You said we should consider both, the EC and popular vote to make a decision.

Oh...

I assumed you were reading the other posts in the thread.

If no candidate wins both the plurality of the total votes cast AND 270 electoral votes, the 20th amendment takes over.

If the question is whether to have the PV or the EC, I say keep everything as it is. It’s fine as it is.

However if we really want to “make every vote count”, we need a system that actually does make every vote count. Mine does.

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

Changing our EC to PV would be mob rule. Only a few states would control the majority of states like what happened last election.

Mob rule? Is that a euphemism for having every vote count?

A nationwide popular vote would overwhelmingly represent the desires of urbanites living in a few very large cities while ignoring the desires of millions living outside said cities. The EC, like it or not, ensures that the desires of the minority are actually considered.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh...

I assumed you were reading the other posts in the thread.

If no candidate wins both the plurality of the total votes cast AND 270 electoral votes, the 20th amendment takes over.

If the question is whether to have the PV or the EC, I say keep everything as it is. It’s fine as it is.

However if we really want to “make every vote count”, we need a system that actually does make every vote count. Mine does.

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

Changing our EC to PV would be mob rule. Only a few states would control the majority of states like what happened last election.

Mob rule? Is that a euphemism for having every vote count?

A nationwide popular vote would overwhelmingly represent the desires of urbanites living in a few very large cities while ignoring the desires of millions living outside said cities. The EC, like it or not, ensures that the desires of the minority are actually considered.

That's the truth. If we went to popular vote, and a state suffered severe damage and deaths that didn't have a large population, why spend tax dollars there? There isn't enough votes in that state to worry about. Let them rebuild their own homes and businesses.

 

[candycorn]

That's not what you said. You said we should consider both, the EC and popular vote to make a decision.

Oh...

I assumed you were reading the other posts in the thread.

If no candidate wins both the plurality of the total votes cast AND 270 electoral votes, the 20th amendment takes over.

If the question is whether to have the PV or the EC, I say keep everything as it is. It’s fine as it is.

However if we really want to “make every vote count”, we need a system that actually does make every vote count. Mine does.

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

Some Republicans routinely favor getting rid of the EC when they lose


Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses

Correct... some. Notice I caught it before you deleted it.

Question for you, is what they're doing, or talking about doing, wrong?

I think so. I skimmed the source but from what I recall, it was about proportional awarding of electors based on congressional districts. A terrible idea given that federal courts are routinely ordering redraws.

 

[Ame®icano]

Oh...

I assumed you were reading the other posts in the thread.

If no candidate wins both the plurality of the total votes cast AND 270 electoral votes, the 20th amendment takes over.

If the question is whether to have the PV or the EC, I say keep everything as it is. It’s fine as it is.

However if we really want to “make every vote count”, we need a system that actually does make every vote count. Mine does.

IF this... IF that... Really.

How about this, IF you lose the election, you try to win next one, instead of trying to overturn current one.

We already have system that works, and what's not broke it doesn't need fixing.

Democrats have been trying to change the system to work in their favor, and stay in power, since Democrats. When they win, system works great, and when they lose, system have to be changed so they can win again.

we have a system that has worked but is not without flaw. Many feel that the electoral system ignores the votes of millions of people which it does, and a popular vote system would give a better gauge for how each American feels. Nothing wrong with that discussion. I think the argument is strong in favor of a popular vote. Why do you oppose it?

Some Republicans routinely favor getting rid of the EC when they lose


Republicans want to change laws on Electoral College votes, after presidential losses

Correct... some. Notice I caught it before you deleted it.

Question for you, is what they're doing, or talking about doing, wrong?

I think so. I skimmed the source but from what I recall, it was about proportional awarding of electors based on congressional districts. A terrible idea given that federal courts are routinely ordering redraws.

OK, you think it's wrong for reason you said. Now, do you think it's wrong to give all state's EV to winner of national PV? If you think that is fair, that proportional EV split would be even more fair, because it would represent will of voters from both sides, reciprocally.

I do agree it's wrong, but for different reason. We already have election process that works for the interests of all states, regardless of how big or small they are. Reason they're doing it is to counter what left is doing in states where they have full control.

 

[M14 Shooter]

All that math and for what? Clinton still received more votes.

And no one cares, except for trolls who think someone cares.

Trump cares.

I'm sure that's -exactly- what he was thinking as he took the oath of office, while Hillary watched Bill check out Melania.

Yeah, he cares.

I'm sure he's thinking about it as he signs executive orders that dismantle The Obama's legacy.

 

[HappyJoy]

All that math and for what? Clinton still received more votes.

And no one cares, except for trolls who think someone cares.

Trump cares.

I'm sure that's -exactly- what he was thinking as he took the oath of office, while Hillary watched Bill check out Melania.

Yeah, he cares.

I'm sure he's thinking about it as he signs executive orders that dismantle The Obama's legacy.

Don't put your back out moving those goal posts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

And no one cares, except for trolls who think someone cares.

Trump cares.

I'm sure that's -exactly- what he was thinking as he took the oath of office, while Hillary watched Bill check out Melania.

Yeah, he cares.

I'm sure he's thinking about it as he signs executive orders that dismantle The Obama's legacy.

Don't put your back out moving those goal posts.

Truth hurts, eh?

 

[HappyJoy]

Trump cares.

I'm sure that's -exactly- what he was thinking as he took the oath of office, while Hillary watched Bill check out Melania.

Yeah, he cares.

I'm sure he's thinking about it as he signs executive orders that dismantle The Obama's legacy.

Don't put your back out moving those goal posts.

Truth hurts, eh?

He's sure having a difficult time of it. Anyway, Trump trying to erase Obama's legacy says more about how insecure Trump is than anything else. Just can't stand being less liked.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I'm sure that's -exactly- what he was thinking as he took the oath of office, while Hillary watched Bill check out Melania.

Yeah, he cares.

I'm sure he's thinking about it as he signs executive orders that dismantle The Obama's legacy.

Don't put your back out moving those goal posts.

Truth hurts, eh?

He's sure having a difficult time of it. Anyway, Trump trying to erase Obama's legacy says more about how insecure Trump is than anything else. Just can't stand being less liked.