Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[OldLady]

The President should be a president of the people, not a president of the states

The states have Congress to represent their interests

That sounds reasonable.

 

[Pogo]

----------------------------------------- and? What's your point? Are the people of Wyoming (Montana, Dakotas, etc) somehow "worth more" than people elsewhere?

What, are Los Angelinos somehow "subhuman"?

Isn't that revealing.

neither.

But, you seem to believe that ONE city is more important than FOUR states.

and it isn't

Something even the Founding Fathers were aware of.

They didn't want NY, VA and Penn ruling the country.

Why do you want Ca and NY ruling the country?

Actually you're wrong -- they did indeed want Virginia running the country; that's why they awarded its EVs in the amount of 3/5 of their slaves to bloat its influence.

Don't believe me? Check it out.

George Washington ---- Virginia. Slaveowner. Two terms.
John Adams --- Massachusetts. Non slaveowner. One term.
Thomas Jefferson --- Virginia. Slaveowner. Two terms.
James Madison --- Virginia. Slaveowner. Two terms.
James Monroe --- Virginia. Slaveowner. Two terms.

That's eight of the first nine Administrations from Virginia, which had extra EVs because of counting slaves.

Ever wonder why we were all taught in school that all these guys were from Virginia yet they never told us WHY they were from Virginia? Whelp ---- I just did.

Lol
There would be no United States without the founding fathers...
And original slaveowners in this country were my ancestors… American Indians

so take your fucking political correctness and shove it up your fucking ass

Feel free to SUCK MY DICK on the way to going to learn how the fuck to read.

Nothing I posted said anything about the history of slavery DUMBASS.

Nice foul mouth.
Dead giveaway for zero ed

Learn how to read the quote nest.

You bite me, I bite back twice as hard. DEAL with it.

 

[ph3iron]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

Why not?
Every other educated country has a popular vote
a paper written by slave owners and slave rapists is a pathetic thing to go by.
It's 2018 folks

 

[g5000]

That's the point this is not really what you would call a large homogeneous Nation like Japan or even China where one culture stretches across the width and breadth of the entire nation. Instead this is a very large and powerful conglomeration of many little Nations. It's an important aspect that adds both flexibility and durability to the union and must never be forgotten in a race to eliminate the states right's or boundaries.

Jo

So, if there's not a homogeneous nation, then there shouldn't be democracy?

I don't get it.

You think China is one homogeneous nation? Really? Is this the ignorance we're dealing with here?

You're saying that the US is lots of small nations. It was in 1776. It isn't today. Yes, some people might associate with one state. But many people are from all over, move from one state to another state etc.

Also, each State is not made up of one type of people. It's not like everyone in Georgia feels that pride for their state like someone from France might for their country.

But basically your argument is that because there are States, there shouldn't be democracy.

I still don't get it. You're not even trying to convince, you're just saying stuff.

But many people are from all over, move from one state to another state etc.

and there is no reason they can't take their political views with them.

But, imagine you're a Democrat from California, and you move to Wyoming. Oh, you're screwed. You won't have a Democrat to represent you in the house. In the Presidential election your vote doesn't count any more.

What bullshit is that?

Same happens when a Republican from Wyoming moves to California, doesn't it?

Depending , of course, which part of the state they move to.

Actually no move is needed --- the same voter is screwed whether he/she is (already) a Republican in California, a Democrat in Wyoming, a Republican in Massachusetts, a Democrat in Texas, etc etc etc.

One of my primary criticisms on which you affixed a "funny" --- was that the system takes millions of votes and tosses them immediately in the shitcan, and that as a result voters in those locked states, knowing in advance that's going to happen, don't bother to turn out. Thus we'll never know how many would have voted for Rump in California or for Clinton in Alabama, since ALL of them knew before election day that there would be NO POINT IN DOING SO.

Ah, but this exact same principle applies in a blue congressional district which directly elects their representative. Red voters don't vote on election day because there would be NO POINT IN DOING SO. And vice versa in red congressional districts.

It's a simple fact that rural voters would be completely ignored by candidates if we did not have the electoral college.

Actually, it would be much worse than that. They would not only be ignored, they would have unfair legislation inflicted on them by the mob which elected the President.

 

[g5000]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

Why not?
Every other educated country has a popular vote
a paper written by slave owners and slave rapists is a pathetic thing to go by.
It's 2018 folks

Our Founders went to great pains to make sure we were not like every other country. They went to great pains to learn lessons from every other country all the way back to antiquity.

Yes, it's 2018. And America was the beacon which led all those other countries to throw off the shackles of aristocracy into the modern age. Those countries adopted our Constitution as their model.

We are the leaders, not the followers of the world.

By the way. The UK does not select their Prime Minister by popular vote. So your claim is false.

 

[rightwinger]

The President should be a president of the people, not a president of the states

The states have Congress to represent their interests

That sounds reasonable.

Problem is that our founders did not trust the people
I also think that in 1787 they did not have a way of calculating a popular vote. Easier to count 13 colonies

 

[g5000]

Every other educated country has a popular vote

Germany has an electoral system to elect their president. They do not directly vote for their President.

The UK has an electoral system to elect their prime minister. They do not directly vote for PM.

Italy has an electoral system to elect their president. They do not directly vote for their president.

Switzerland has an electoral system to elect their prime minister. They do not directly vote for their PM.

Australia does not directly vote for their PM.

And so forth, and so on.

You are quite wrong.

I told you. We are the leaders, not the followers, of the world.

 

[Unkotare]

The President should be a president of the people, not a president of the states

The states have Congress to represent their interests

Good luck in whatever country you move to.

 

[g5000]

Oh, damn. Did I mention Canada?

Hmmm...no. No, I did not.

Canadians do not directly vote for their PM.

Dammit!

There has GOT to be some "other educated country" somewhere which directly elects their leader!

 

[bendog]

So, if there's not a homogeneous nation, then there shouldn't be democracy?

I don't get it.

You think China is one homogeneous nation? Really? Is this the ignorance we're dealing with here?

You're saying that the US is lots of small nations. It was in 1776. It isn't today. Yes, some people might associate with one state. But many people are from all over, move from one state to another state etc.

Also, each State is not made up of one type of people. It's not like everyone in Georgia feels that pride for their state like someone from France might for their country.

But basically your argument is that because there are States, there shouldn't be democracy.

I still don't get it. You're not even trying to convince, you're just saying stuff.

But many people are from all over, move from one state to another state etc.

and there is no reason they can't take their political views with them.

But, imagine you're a Democrat from California, and you move to Wyoming. Oh, you're screwed. You won't have a Democrat to represent you in the house. In the Presidential election your vote doesn't count any more.

What bullshit is that?

Same happens when a Republican from Wyoming moves to California, doesn't it?

Depending , of course, which part of the state they move to.

Actually no move is needed --- the same voter is screwed whether he/she is (already) a Republican in California, a Democrat in Wyoming, a Republican in Massachusetts, a Democrat in Texas, etc etc etc.

One of my primary criticisms on which you affixed a "funny" --- was that the system takes millions of votes and tosses them immediately in the shitcan, and that as a result voters in those locked states, knowing in advance that's going to happen, don't bother to turn out. Thus we'll never know how many would have voted for Rump in California or for Clinton in Alabama, since ALL of them knew before election day that there would be NO POINT IN DOING SO.

Ah, but this exact same principle applies in a blue congressional district which directly elects their representative. Red voters don't vote on election day because there would be NO POINT IN DOING SO. And vice versa in red congressional districts.

It's a simple fact that rural voters would be completely ignored by candidates if we did not have the electoral college.

Actually, it would be much worse than that. They would not only be ignored, they would have unfair legislation inflicted on them by the mob which elected the President.

And despite what the dems said, the EC did not do in Hillary in 16. Wisc Mich and Pa did.

 

[g5000]

Okay, can we get a waiver for Mexico? Can we call Mexico an "educated country"? Just this once? Pleeeeeeease?


Mexicans directly vote for their President. But he only gets to serve one six year term. Yay term limits!

Yet those poor bastards are coming to America in droves! And it is mostly rural people!

How about that?

 

[Pogo]

So, if there's not a homogeneous nation, then there shouldn't be democracy?

I don't get it.

You think China is one homogeneous nation? Really? Is this the ignorance we're dealing with here?

You're saying that the US is lots of small nations. It was in 1776. It isn't today. Yes, some people might associate with one state. But many people are from all over, move from one state to another state etc.

Also, each State is not made up of one type of people. It's not like everyone in Georgia feels that pride for their state like someone from France might for their country.

But basically your argument is that because there are States, there shouldn't be democracy.

I still don't get it. You're not even trying to convince, you're just saying stuff.

But many people are from all over, move from one state to another state etc.

and there is no reason they can't take their political views with them.

But, imagine you're a Democrat from California, and you move to Wyoming. Oh, you're screwed. You won't have a Democrat to represent you in the house. In the Presidential election your vote doesn't count any more.

What bullshit is that?

Same happens when a Republican from Wyoming moves to California, doesn't it?

Depending , of course, which part of the state they move to.

Actually no move is needed --- the same voter is screwed whether he/she is (already) a Republican in California, a Democrat in Wyoming, a Republican in Massachusetts, a Democrat in Texas, etc etc etc.

One of my primary criticisms on which you affixed a "funny" --- was that the system takes millions of votes and tosses them immediately in the shitcan, and that as a result voters in those locked states, knowing in advance that's going to happen, don't bother to turn out. Thus we'll never know how many would have voted for Rump in California or for Clinton in Alabama, since ALL of them knew before election day that there would be NO POINT IN DOING SO.

Ah, but this exact same principle applies in a blue congressional district which directly elects their representative. Red voters don't vote on election day because there would be NO POINT IN DOING SO. And vice versa in red congressional districts.

This is a false comparison. Congressional district elections do not filter votes through a proxy. A simple plurality of the vote prevails, regardless where in the district they came from. My own district has flipped twice in the last decade.

Now if various precincts within that district were casting unanimous votes based on candidate X won the most votes, you'd begin to have a comparator.

In fact whether it's Congresscritter, Senator, Governor, Mayor, Referendum, Commissioner of Small Furry Animals, every office -- save the POTUS -- is elected by a plurality of one-voter-one-vote regardless where in the state/county/precinct they come from. Which means the end result accurately reflects the voters' wishes. Key word there being accurately. Which is in fact how voting is intended to work.

It's a simple fact that rural voters would be completely ignored by candidates if we did not have the electoral college.

Actually, it would be much worse than that. They would not only be ignored, they would have unfair legislation inflicted on them by the mob which elected the President.

I have never been able to wrap my head around this specious "mob" argument. The whole idea of voting for anything anywhere is that the majority carries the will of those voting on whatever the issue is, It's the entire point of the whole concept of voting. What would be the point of holding a vote on whether to wear cheese wedges on our heads, and the vote says no we shouldn't, therefore we are obliged to wear cheese wedges on our heads because to not do so would be "mob rule"? Doesn't make a damn bit of sense. The fact that all voters have agreed in advance to proceed on the basis of the vote is exactly what makes it NOT a mob.

Sorry this "mob rule" malarkey is just Orwellian Doublethink writ mobular. To ignore the results of a(ny) vote by calling it "mob rule" is to toss the entire process of voting into the shitcan. If that's the desired route then don't hold a vote at all.


As for who would be ignored, everybody, urban and rural, is already ignored in locked-red and locked-blue states. Entirely taken for granted unless they become close. Ever see Rump campaign in Connecticut? Clinton campaign in Utah? What would be the point? Like the voters of that state, they know the outcome before the vote. And nobody ever goes to Alaska or Hawaìi, because the Duopoly has already duo-agreed that those states are preallocated so they both save travel expenses.

At least 80% of what I'm criticizing here is the WTA part. You haven't addressed that. Nobody ever does, because it's indefensible. The Constitution in fact in no way requires WTA at all, yet several of the states have passed clearly antiConstitutional state statutes that require it. Not only going down that road but actually legislating it. Now that's fucked up.

 

[g5000]

If you don't like our failure to directly elect our leader, you can always move to Canada...

Oh, wait.

Okay, Britain then.

FUCK!

Switzerland's nice.

No...

Well, I guess it's off to Mexico. Hope you aren't a rural voter...

 

[Pogo]

Every other educated country has a popular vote

Germany has an electoral system to elect their president. They do not directly vote for their President.

The UK has an electoral system to elect their prime minister. They do not directly vote for PM.

Italy has an electoral system to elect their president. They do not directly vote for their president.

Switzerland has an electoral system to elect their prime minister. They do not directly vote for their PM.

Australia does not directly vote for their PM.

And so forth, and so on.

You are quite wrong.

I told you. We are the leaders, not the followers, of the world.

Nobody does it through an indirect proxy system except us and Pakistan.

 

[rightwinger]

The President should be a president of the people, not a president of the states

The states have Congress to represent their interests

Good luck in whatever country you move to.

Wrong

 

[Issa]

No! California and democrats import illegals. California should lose their right to vote and so should Broward County Florida!

The US without California will be like Uzbekistan.

No, but Ca. would resemble Argentina

Argentina is a very good country btw lol...ignorance....is better than any red state. .

 

[Cecilie1200]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

But states aren't fairly represented. When you can have 51% or the people in California vote for candidate A, and the other 49%, plus the entire populations of Kentucky,Tennessee, arkansas, Missouri and oklahoma vote for candidate B, and candidate A gets more electoral votes, how does that seem fair?

I'm all for the constitution, but I think this is one where I think maybe they got it wrong.

Popular vote seems to me, to be more reflective of the peoples will. That is, after all, what is supposed to decide elections.

As before, I readily admit that I may not be thinking about this in the right way, and hope someone will explain what it is that I'm not seeing.

How can that be fair? Because Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma are all just as much states as California is, and as such, are just as important as California is.

See, you think "fair" is defined as "meeting MY personal standard of how things should be", without any regard to any OTHER standards of measurement. You have determined that the only thing that matters is number of people, ergo "fair" is all about that. Maybe before you go setting standards for the rest of the world, Oh Mighty Arbiter of Cosmic Justice, you should get some education and broaden your perspective.

Don't even give me "I'm all for the Constitution" when the next words out of your mouth are going to basically be "When it agrees with my worldview".

"The people's will" is not, and never has been, the only or the ultimate measurement of what is good, or what we are aiming for.

 

[justoffal]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before. If I'm not mistaken the voting system was originally established on a popular vote. It doesn't work, it never did and there's no possibility that human nature will change to the point where it will be possible for it to function in a large nation especially a nation such as we have which is really a collection of smaller nations that have managed to construct what can only be referred to as a non homogenous union.

For one thing a popular only vote system across a federal election violates the original pact made by States when they first formed the Union that would enable each and every state to be fairly represented as a part of that Union.

Jo

But states aren't fairly represented. When you can have 51% or the people in California vote for candidate A, and the other 49%, plus the entire populations of Kentucky,Tennessee, arkansas, Missouri and oklahoma vote for candidate B, and candidate A gets more electoral votes, how does that seem fair?

I'm all for the constitution, but I think this is one where I think maybe they got it wrong.

Popular vote seems to me, to be more reflective of the peoples will. That is, after all, what is supposed to decide elections.

As before, I readily admit that I may not be thinking about this in the right way, and hope someone will explain what it is that I'm not seeing.

How can that be fair? Because Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma are all just as much states as California is, and as such, are just as important as California is.

See, you think "fair" is defined as "meeting MY personal standard of how things should be", without any regard to any OTHER standards of measurement. You have determined that the only thing that matters is number of people, ergo "fair" is all about that. Maybe before you go setting standards for the rest of the world, Oh Mighty Arbiter of Cosmic Justice, you should get some education and broaden your perspective.

Don't even give me "I'm all for the Constitution" when the next words out of your mouth are going to basically be "When it agrees with my worldview".

"The people's will" is not, and never has been, the only or the ultimate measurement of what is good, or what we are aiming for.

I couldn't agree more! If Hillary won by EC this would not be an issue.

Jo

Jo

 

[Cecilie1200]

No! California and democrats import illegals. California should lose their right to vote and so should Broward County Florida!

The US without California will be like Uzbekistan.

Thhe US without crazy Cali is a lot more sane

Dude you have no idea what California represents, give and so to the US and the world. NO CLUE.

Dude, you have no idea what exists outside of California. NO CLUE.

 

[Claudette]

No! California and democrats import illegals. California should lose their right to vote and so should Broward County Florida!

The US without California will be like Uzbekistan.

Thhe US without crazy Cali is a lot more sane

Dude you have no idea what California represents, give and so to the US and the world. NO CLUE.

Dude, you have no idea what exists outside of California. NO CLUE.

She's pretty much a lefty idiot. In case you haven't noticed.