Revisiting That Dirty Popular Vote Thing Again

[colfax_m]

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.

Our forefathers missed a lot of things. They knew it when they wrote the constitution. They did not foresee a party system let alone states forcing their electors to vote for the popular vote winner.

Don’t bring up the founding fathers without acknowledging that our current EC is not the one they envisioned.

 

[toobfreak]

The population of LA and NYC have more people in those two cities alone than the lowest populated 12 states. Should those two cities have more power to elect a President than those 12 states?

They have even more power with the EC system...
How many more electoral votes do CA and NY have compared to the 12 states you’re comparing them to?

The EC brings it a little closer to equal. They will always have more power because of more electors. But currently, a President has to be concerned about the states that have less. In a PV, who would care?

California’s 55 electoral votes which always go Blue

Curious claim considering that before 1992, California was actually often a RED state! Or at least went both ways actually responding to the actual people running rather than purely on blind ideology.


View attachment 310284

I’m not talking about pre 1992 I’m talking about modern times

You said ALWAYS goes blue. California didn't ALWAYS go blue and there is nothing stopping it from not going blue this Fall. You mean if I put Adolf Hitler in there or Mao Zedong as the Dem candidate, it would still just "vote blue?"

Better check the back of your neck for a wind-up key then.

 

[Slade3200]

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?

Nobody would campaign outside of large population centers if we had straight PV determination of the President Elect. Also consider if in 20 years or so we get a popular citizen who decides to run and gets 25% of the vote—Dwayne Johnson, George Clooney or Rush Limbo are capable of doing so.

So the eventual victor will likely be someone who got 40%. We could have that now of course but it is more likely under the PV.

Sure they would why would it change where they campaign?

Are you serious? Picking up 25% in a metropolitan area will get you more votes than getting 25% in some states. No reason to go to Iowa.

Good point... the popular vote does not make the big cities and states more powerful, it actually makes places like California help Republicans much more than the current system. The difference is that it will make is minimizing the impact of the smaller battleground states. The way to counter this would be to allow the smaller states to cast their votes before the bigger states. This way there is political advantage towards campaigning and winning those states. Just like we see in the primary process. SC launched Biden’s campaign not because of the delegates gained but because of the campaign and victory.

 

[M14 Shooter]

would it surprise you to learn that. California’s 55 electoral votes which always go Blue...

This is a lie.

 

[Slade3200]

They have even more power with the EC system...
How many more electoral votes do CA and NY have compared to the 12 states you’re comparing them to?

The EC brings it a little closer to equal. They will always have more power because of more electors. But currently, a President has to be concerned about the states that have less. In a PV, who would care?

California’s 55 electoral votes which always go Blue

Curious claim considering that before 1992, California was actually often a RED state! Or at least went both ways actually responding to the actual people running rather than purely on blind ideology.


View attachment 310284

I’m not talking about pre 1992 I’m talking about modern times

You said ALWAYS goes blue. California didn't ALWAYS go blue and there is nothing stopping it from not going blue this Fall. You mean if I put Adolf Hitler in there or Mao Zedong as the Dem candidate, it would still just "vote blue?"

Better check the back of your neck for a wind-up key then.

Jesus man, always word games with you. I’m not here to play like that. Yes California used to go red and Dems used to support slavery. Who gives a shit? It’s not what this conversation is about and it’s not relevant to the point I made.

 

[Slade3200]

would it surprise you to learn that. California’s 55 electoral votes which always go Blue...

This is a lie.

You’re right, Cali went red decades ago. I lied. Best to not trust anything I say or engage in the actual debate. Do yourself a favor and press that little ignore button by my name

 

[toobfreak]

The EC brings it a little closer to equal. They will always have more power because of more electors. But currently, a President has to be concerned about the states that have less. In a PV, who would care?

California’s 55 electoral votes which always go Blue

Curious claim considering that before 1992, California was actually often a RED state! Or at least went both ways actually responding to the actual people running rather than purely on blind ideology.


View attachment 310284

I’m not talking about pre 1992 I’m talking about modern times

You said ALWAYS goes blue. California didn't ALWAYS go blue and there is nothing stopping it from not going blue this Fall. You mean if I put Adolf Hitler in there or Mao Zedong as the Dem candidate, it would still just "vote blue?"

Better check the back of your neck for a wind-up key then.

Jesus man, always word games with you.

It's not a WORD GAME to take your statements literally as the English language INTENDS. Maybe you should try speaking intelligently and cogently? If California always votes blue in "modern times" now as the giant in the kiddie pool no matter what or who, then we really need to wonder and look at just what the fuck is really going on! Because voters don't just automatically vote the same all the time over and over (you mean CA will never again vote red?) unless it really isn't them deciding the outcome.

 

[Slade3200]

California’s 55 electoral votes which always go Blue

Curious claim considering that before 1992, California was actually often a RED state! Or at least went both ways actually responding to the actual people running rather than purely on blind ideology.


View attachment 310284

I’m not talking about pre 1992 I’m talking about modern times

You said ALWAYS goes blue. California didn't ALWAYS go blue and there is nothing stopping it from not going blue this Fall. You mean if I put Adolf Hitler in there or Mao Zedong as the Dem candidate, it would still just "vote blue?"

Better check the back of your neck for a wind-up key then.

Jesus man, always word games with you.

It's not a WORD GAME to take your statements literally as the English language INTENDS. Maybe you should try speaking intelligently and cogently? If California always votes blue in "modern times" now as the giant in the kiddie pool no matter what or who, then we really need to wonder and look at just what the fuck is really going on! Because voters don't just automatically vote the same all the time over and over (you mean CA will never again vote red?) unless it really isn't them deciding the outcome.

You can the statements in context for the conversation at hand instead of distracting from the point with these games. But why would I expect that from you?

 

[Ame®icano]

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.

Name anything from Barry's legacy that is worth keeping.

 

[Slade3200]

California’s 55 electoral votes which always go Blue

Curious claim considering that before 1992, California was actually often a RED state! Or at least went both ways actually responding to the actual people running rather than purely on blind ideology.


View attachment 310284

I’m not talking about pre 1992 I’m talking about modern times

You said ALWAYS goes blue. California didn't ALWAYS go blue and there is nothing stopping it from not going blue this Fall. You mean if I put Adolf Hitler in there or Mao Zedong as the Dem candidate, it would still just "vote blue?"

Better check the back of your neck for a wind-up key then.

Jesus man, always word games with you.

It's not a WORD GAME to take your statements literally as the English language INTENDS. Maybe you should try speaking intelligently and cogently? If California always votes blue in "modern times" now as the giant in the kiddie pool no matter what or who, then we really need to wonder and look at just what the fuck is really going on! Because voters don't just automatically vote the same all the time over and over (you mean CA will never again vote red?) unless it really isn't them deciding the outcome.

substitute “Always” with “tends to” or “usually”. That’s my point. Did you really not get that?

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's not a WORD GAME to take your statements literally as the English language INTENDS. Maybe you should try speaking intelligently and cogently?

Can't. It hurts him too much.
He'd rather lie and then whine when he gets caught.

 

[toobfreak]

would it surprise you to learn that. California’s 55 electoral votes which always go Blue...

This is a lie.

You’re right, Cali went red decades ago. I lied. Best to not trust anything I say or engage in the actual debate. Do yourself a favor and press that little ignore button by my name

Actually, if one actually bothers with the FACTS, going back to the beginning of this country, this whole nation voted Blue for 28 years (CA didn't exist yet).

Then California voted RED for 24 years.

Then after a time, CA voted RED again straight for 20 years.

Then after a time, CA voted BLUE for 24 years.

Then after a time, CA voted RED again for 16 years.

Then after a time, CA voted straight RED for another stretch of 28 years.

And now CA has voted Blue for 32 years.

Each of these was counted from the time of the last alternate party vote to the next change in party vote.

So the current Blue trend proves nothing.

California is actually due / overdue to vote Red again.

 

[toobfreak]

Curious claim considering that before 1992, California was actually often a RED state! Or at least went both ways actually responding to the actual people running rather than purely on blind ideology.


View attachment 310284

I’m not talking about pre 1992 I’m talking about modern times

You said ALWAYS goes blue. California didn't ALWAYS go blue and there is nothing stopping it from not going blue this Fall. You mean if I put Adolf Hitler in there or Mao Zedong as the Dem candidate, it would still just "vote blue?"

Better check the back of your neck for a wind-up key then.

Jesus man, always word games with you.

It's not a WORD GAME to take your statements literally as the English language INTENDS. Maybe you should try speaking intelligently and cogently? If California always votes blue in "modern times" now as the giant in the kiddie pool no matter what or who, then we really need to wonder and look at just what the fuck is really going on! Because voters don't just automatically vote the same all the time over and over (you mean CA will never again vote red?) unless it really isn't them deciding the outcome.

substitute “Always” with “tends to” or “usually”. That’s my point. Did you really not get that?

Now I'm supposed to be psychic and read your mind as well? Can you read MY mind right now?

Do you libs EVER just admit you made even the SLIGHTEST faux pas error?

 

[Slade3200]

would it surprise you to learn that. California’s 55 electoral votes which always go Blue...

This is a lie.

You’re right, Cali went red decades ago. I lied. Best to not trust anything I say or engage in the actual debate. Do yourself a favor and press that little ignore button by my name

Actually, if one actually bothers with the FACTS, going back to the beginning of this country, this whole nation voted Blue for 28 years (CA didn't exist yet).

Then California voted RED for 24 years.

Then after a time, CA voted RED again straight for 20 years.

Then after a time, CA voted BLUE for 24 years.

Then after a time, CA voted RED again for 16 years.

Then after a time, CA voted straight RED for another stretch of 28 years.

And now CA has voted Blue for 32 years.

Each of these was counted from the time of the last alternate party vote to the next change in party vote.

So the current Blue trend proves nothing.

California is actually due / overdue to vote Red again.

That’s an interesting and well stated point. Doesn’t have anything to do with my point about the influence in the EC college or popular vote topic but I’ll take it over the gotchya word game stuff

 

[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?

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.

Our forefathers missed a lot of things. They knew it when they wrote the constitution. They did not foresee a party system let alone states forcing their electors to vote for the popular vote winner.

Don’t bring up the founding fathers without acknowledging that our current EC is not the one they envisioned.

don't ignore why they did what they did cause you don't like it. you are doing nothing to ensure states have equal votes in your commentary so it leads one to understand you want what is best for your views, not the country.

 

[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?

How does It protect the smaller states? Can you give an example?

I think it makes sense for residents to be represented and I think the citizenship issue needs to be addressed and fixed by congress

It's been explained number of times.

If you need to campaign in four most populous states to win the popular vote of the whole country, why would you campaign in North Dakota? It's easier to import half a million of illegals into California and give them driver's license, and wink while you tell them "you can't vote".

 

[Slade3200]

I’m not talking about pre 1992 I’m talking about modern times

You said ALWAYS goes blue. California didn't ALWAYS go blue and there is nothing stopping it from not going blue this Fall. You mean if I put Adolf Hitler in there or Mao Zedong as the Dem candidate, it would still just "vote blue?"

Better check the back of your neck for a wind-up key then.

Jesus man, always word games with you.

It's not a WORD GAME to take your statements literally as the English language INTENDS. Maybe you should try speaking intelligently and cogently? If California always votes blue in "modern times" now as the giant in the kiddie pool no matter what or who, then we really need to wonder and look at just what the fuck is really going on! Because voters don't just automatically vote the same all the time over and over (you mean CA will never again vote red?) unless it really isn't them deciding the outcome.

substitute “Always” with “tends to” or “usually”. That’s my point. Did you really not get that?

Now I'm supposed to be psychic and read your mind as well? Can you read MY mind right now?

Do you libs EVER just admit you made even the SLIGHTEST faux pas error?

I’d expect you take understand the context of the point I was making. I wasn’t making a historical argument about how California votes. CA is know as a blue state, has it always been blue? No. Will it always be blue? Perhaps not. But right now it is a blue state. An my point was that it has helped Dems much more with the EC college much more than it would have if there was a popular vote

 

[toobfreak]

would it surprise you to learn that. California’s 55 electoral votes which always go Blue...

This is a lie.

You’re right, Cali went red decades ago. I lied. Best to not trust anything I say or engage in the actual debate. Do yourself a favor and press that little ignore button by my name

Actually, if one actually bothers with the FACTS, going back to the beginning of this country, this whole nation voted Blue for 28 years (CA didn't exist yet).

Then California voted RED for 24 years.

Then after a time, CA voted RED again straight for 20 years.

Then after a time, CA voted BLUE for 24 years.

Then after a time, CA voted RED again for 16 years.

Then after a time, CA voted straight RED for another stretch of 28 years.

And now CA has voted Blue for 32 years.

Each of these was counted from the time of the last alternate party vote to the next change in party vote.

So the current Blue trend proves nothing.

California is actually due / overdue to vote Red again.

That’s an interesting and well stated point. Doesn’t have anything to do with my point about the influence in the EC college or popular vote topic but I’ll take it over the gotchya word game stuff

About your EC claim, all that really points to is the need to divide California up into two states soon.

 

[Slade3200]

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?

How does It protect the smaller states? Can you give an example?

I think it makes sense for residents to be represented and I think the citizenship issue needs to be addressed and fixed by congress

It's been explained number of times.

If you need to campaign in four most populous states to win the popular vote of the whole country, why would you campaign in North Dakota? It's easier to import half a million of illegals into California and give them driver's license, and wink while you tell them "you can't vote".

A popular vote system applied to the last election makes California’s results an advantage to republicans over the EC advantage that went to the Dems. It would have been a 6 point swing in favor as the Republicans.

 

[hadit]

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.

And who would give a rat's patoot about the concerns of dairy farmers when their votes literally don't matter?