Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[Cellblock2429]

The ultimate problem with the adjustments that these individuals want to make to the system we already have is that none of them are willing to accept loss as a final result for their choice. Each one of them sees loss as a problem with the system instead of realizing that the system ...in fact any system....is designed to create one winner and many losers. It is therefore likely that they will continue to seek change for as long as they are unwilling to accept loss. The Democratic party in this current political outlay is a perfect example of this condition.

Jo

Not true. If you don’t like the remedy I prescribe (the PE having to win the plurality of the Popular Vote overall, the plurality of the 26 states individual popular votes, as well as the plurality of electoral college) and if you don’t win all three, the 12th Amendment takes over…. that’s cool. But the fact of the matter is that the remedy I prescribed would have only come up twice during my lifetime; 2000 and 2016 when the EC winner didn’t win the popular vote. However, in each of those cases the GOP controlled the House in each case so the outcome would have not been different at all.

I’m a liberal.

I break with almost all other liberals insofar as I see no good reason to not have a nationwide picture ID card that must be presented when one casts a ballot as long as the ID card is free to the voter.

To me, we have a very easy way to make the voting process as sterile as possible. Why not do it?

The same thing applies to the way we elect our President. In 1800, counting the votes was tedious, in 1900 it was tedious, in 1950 it was tedious. In 2018, it is done almost effortlessly. Why not leverage those technological advancements to yield a better result where the people who live here have a direct hand in deciding who leads us?

If there are no improvements made (I have yet to hear a good reason to not improve the system) however, I agree, leave it the way it is. The electoral college is one of the best ideas we have had.

/----/ Libs will find a way to work around Voter ID laws. Desk top publishing can generate excellent forgeries for driver's licenses.

You’re really stupid.

/——/ Who are you calling stupid?

That would be you.

/----/ Do you just randomly call strangers stupid without out offering a reason why?
I'm guessing it's because I said forging IDs are easy to do in the right hands.
Check Fraud / Counterfeit Checks - Georgia
Check Fraud / Counterfeit Checks Affordable software and hardware and other advancements in computer technology are making it easier to duplicate checks or fabricate new ones. A significant amount of check fraud is due to counterfeiting through desktop publishing software, color copiers, and high-quality printers.
Check Fraud / Counterfeit Checks | Department of Banking and Finance

 

[Cellblock2429]

I would prefer what is called a “ranked choice” voting system. So lets say for example you have in 2020…just for the sake of argument:

Donald Trump-R
Joe Biden-D
Bernie Sanders-I
John Kasich-I


When you vote for one of the men listed above, they are ranked #1 by virtue of your vote. You then have to assign a rank to the other men on the ballot. So lets say I voted for Biden. I’d probably give Brenie my #2, Kasich a #3 and Trump a #4.

What happens though is this. On election night, When the votes are counted, the votes for each man are tallied. Lets say that there are 68 million for Biden and 67 million for Trump and they are the top two vote getters; the other two candidates are then eliminated from the contest. However, the votes that were cast for Sanders and Kasich are examined and those who listed either Trump or Biden as their #2 choice are added to the vote tallies for them.

If you had 17 people on your state’s ballot and you voted for Joe Blow from Idaho and ranked Plain Jane from Key Biscayne as your #2 and ranked Biden as #3, Biden would get your vote. As long as he was ranked ahead of the blob.

No need for a run-off and this will, hopefully, get the candidates to curb their extremism so they appeal to someone other than their core base of support.

Doesn't Maine do something like that? OldLady mentioned it but it's too far back now...

Know what else we need? A choice for NOTA. That would have won 2016 in a landslide.

Another suggestion: Don't list any political parties on the ballot at all. Eliminate those sheeple voting for a party instead of a person.

I agree with you on eliminating the party labels on the ballot.

I also understand why you want the ghetto areas of the big cities to decide who is president. those votes are much easier to buy.

I made no such allusion at all, but I understand why you vote for the Strawman. Seems to be a popular choice here.

the truth is usually popular. when you favor doing away with the EC you favor letting the big cities choose our presidents, that's a simple fact.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

/---- Demographics. The big cities are dominated by liberal democRATs while the folks in Idaho are mostly conservative. Therefore New York has more Congressmen than Idaho and more sway on how the Gubmint functions.

 

[candycorn]

I agree with you on eliminating the party labels on the ballot.

I also understand why you want the ghetto areas of the big cities to decide who is president. those votes are much easier to buy.

I made no such allusion at all, but I understand why you vote for the Strawman. Seems to be a popular choice here.

the truth is usually popular. when you favor doing away with the EC you favor letting the big cities choose our presidents, that's a simple fact.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

Its easier and more efficient to reach the voters in big cities than it is to go door to door in Rural America.

So it's more of an issue for campaign workers?

I heard someone say that states with low populations would never see a candidate again. LOL. That would be fine with most of us, I think. Who cares if they show up in person? We all have tv's and papers.

That and candidates.

 

[Pogo]

We have indeed had this discussion before, for two hundred years. Once the WTA ("winner take all") format started snowballing one of the Electoral College's champions, James Madison, called for a Constitutional Amendment that would ban that practice, even though it would have cost his home state of Virginia. So the discussion goes back at least that far.

The Electoral College was invented to act as a buffer between an electorate that was either uninformed about candidates due to the technological limitations of the time, or easily misled by a huckster, in order to subject the decision to better judgment. It was also tweaked to allot extra power to the slave states by counting their slave populations at the negotiated rate of 3/5 of a person (which persons received 0/5 of a vote), which was called "Slave Power".

Obviously technology has changed, slave states no longer exist, and various states have enacted clearly unConstitutional laws requiring their electors to vote WTA regardless of hucksters or better judgments. Today there's only one other country that elects its head of state which does so by indirect method, which is Pakistan.

The Electoral College needs to go literally yesterday. All it does is create the artificial bullshit divisive entities of "red states", "blue states" and "battleground states", none of which would exist without the WTA/EC; in so doing it perpetuates the Duopoly and ensures no third party will ever gain traction; it throws away the votes of millions as pointless, removing the incentive for most people to vote at all, resulting in abysmal turnout; and it ensures that "solid" states taken for granted will never see a candidate; and it makes the electorate dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on election day to vote at all. Because for most voters, it isn't.

Lets examine your dumb thoughts. If California and NY start making all decisions for every other state, how long do you think those other states will want to remain in the Union? You are so simplistic and naive. There is a reason we dont use a "popular vote" system.

And there's a reason nobody takes your posts seriously, which is that propensity to plug in strawman premises as if they're a fait accompli. You don't think that actually sells, do you?

Yeah sorry Doodles, if you wanna run with the ball of "California and NY making all decisions" the first thing you have to do is prove that ball exists. If you can do that, THEN you can run with it.

Wow, crushing your stupidity is super easy.

There are major benefits for the country when all states are involved in the process, rather than just the two or three high-voter states of California, New York and Massachusetts. If a few large states tried to get five justices of the Supreme Court to kill the electoral college on their own, we probably would see our second civil war.

Don’t abandon the electoral college — it’s good for our democracy

Electoral College – California Rules America Without the Constitution’s System | National Review

Ditching Electoral College would allow California to impose imperial rule on a colonial America - AEI

Without Electoral College, we'd live in real-life 'Hunger Games'

Wow, so "easy" you can't even make your own arguments. Doesn't get much "easier" than that.

Incidentally you didn't address your strawman. So it's being returned to sender for...


--- wait for it ----




"insufficient postage".


I kill me.

 

[Pogo]

Update for you, Pogo . The judge in a preliminary ruling did not stop the ranked choice voting from continuing, and Poliquin, who brought the suit to stop it, lost to his opponent by a hair (50.5 Golden, 49.5 Poliquin). Now we wait to see what the federal court's ruling is on the constitutionality of RCV.

I'd like to see somebody ask this guy to cite that part of the Constitution he thinks applies.

 

[Pogo]

I agree with you on eliminating the party labels on the ballot.

I also understand why you want the ghetto areas of the big cities to decide who is president. those votes are much easier to buy.

I made no such allusion at all, but I understand why you vote for the Strawman. Seems to be a popular choice here.

the truth is usually popular. when you favor doing away with the EC you favor letting the big cities choose our presidents, that's a simple fact.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

Its easier and more efficient to reach the voters in big cities than it is to go door to door in Rural America.

So it's more of an issue for campaign workers?

I heard someone say that states with low populations would never see a candidate again. LOL. That would be fine with most of us, I think. Who cares if they show up in person? We all have tv's and papers.

And even the internetz. And that's what the vast vast majority of voters use for a basis, which is why rhetoric is contrived by wonks with rhetorical beakers and bunsen burners. In the 18th century when the EC was contrived, that wasn't anywhere near the case, and that was a large part of the reason they contrived it. Think we've moved on since then.

Fatter o' mact I haven't seen a candidate in person since 1960.

Not a nominated one anyway; I did see Jerry Brown in 1992 in New Hamster.

 

[Godboy]

We have indeed had this discussion before, for two hundred years. Once the WTA ("winner take all") format started snowballing one of the Electoral College's champions, James Madison, called for a Constitutional Amendment that would ban that practice, even though it would have cost his home state of Virginia. So the discussion goes back at least that far.

The Electoral College was invented to act as a buffer between an electorate that was either uninformed about candidates due to the technological limitations of the time, or easily misled by a huckster, in order to subject the decision to better judgment. It was also tweaked to allot extra power to the slave states by counting their slave populations at the negotiated rate of 3/5 of a person (which persons received 0/5 of a vote), which was called "Slave Power".

Obviously technology has changed, slave states no longer exist, and various states have enacted clearly unConstitutional laws requiring their electors to vote WTA regardless of hucksters or better judgments. Today there's only one other country that elects its head of state which does so by indirect method, which is Pakistan.

The Electoral College needs to go literally yesterday. All it does is create the artificial bullshit divisive entities of "red states", "blue states" and "battleground states", none of which would exist without the WTA/EC; in so doing it perpetuates the Duopoly and ensures no third party will ever gain traction; it throws away the votes of millions as pointless, removing the incentive for most people to vote at all, resulting in abysmal turnout; and it ensures that "solid" states taken for granted will never see a candidate; and it makes the electorate dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on election day to vote at all. Because for most voters, it isn't.

Lets examine your dumb thoughts. If California and NY start making all decisions for every other state, how long do you think those other states will want to remain in the Union? You are so simplistic and naive. There is a reason we dont use a "popular vote" system.

And there's a reason nobody takes your posts seriously, which is that propensity to plug in strawman premises as if they're a fait accompli. You don't think that actually sells, do you?

Yeah sorry Doodles, if you wanna run with the ball of "California and NY making all decisions" the first thing you have to do is prove that ball exists. If you can do that, THEN you can run with it.

Wow, crushing your stupidity is super easy.

There are major benefits for the country when all states are involved in the process, rather than just the two or three high-voter states of California, New York and Massachusetts. If a few large states tried to get five justices of the Supreme Court to kill the electoral college on their own, we probably would see our second civil war.

Don’t abandon the electoral college — it’s good for our democracy

Electoral College – California Rules America Without the Constitution’s System | National Review

Ditching Electoral College would allow California to impose imperial rule on a colonial America - AEI

Without Electoral College, we'd live in real-life 'Hunger Games'

Wow, so "easy" you can't even make your own arguments. Doesn't get much "easier" than that.

Incidentally you didn't address your strawman. So it's being returned to sender for...


--- wait for it ----




"insufficient postage".


I kill me.

You didnt accept the information when it was coming from me, so i provided multiple other sources to prove my point. Dont say dumb things if you dont want to get called out on it.

 

[Pogo]

Doesn't Maine do something like that? OldLady mentioned it but it's too far back now...

Know what else we need? A choice for NOTA. That would have won 2016 in a landslide.

Another suggestion: Don't list any political parties on the ballot at all. Eliminate those sheeple voting for a party instead of a person.

I agree with you on eliminating the party labels on the ballot.

I also understand why you want the ghetto areas of the big cities to decide who is president. those votes are much easier to buy.

I made no such allusion at all, but I understand why you vote for the Strawman. Seems to be a popular choice here.

the truth is usually popular. when you favor doing away with the EC you favor letting the big cities choose our presidents, that's a simple fact.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

because there are more of them and they have a different agenda than people living in Idaho, or Montana or Louisiana, or Alabama. Without the EC four states would pick our presidents, Cal, TX, Ny, and Fl...with Cal having the biggest input. The voters in the other 46 would have zero to say about it if those 4 all voted the same way. That's why the founders put the EC in the constitution.

Well no it isn't, because when they did that Californy, Florida and Texas didn't exist. Nor for all practical purposes did cities, as we have them now.

Moreover you're STILL choosing to ignore that, without the automatic shitcanning of millions of, "blue" votes in Texas or "red" votes in New York (because that concept would not exist), the entire electorate would sea-change in the way it voted since those millions would now actually count, and therefore millions more, who don't bother to now, would have actual reason to show up. Yet you're plugging along as if nothing would change in those voting preferences.

You're in Louisiana. I used to be too. You and I both know that come POTUS election whoever the Republican is, is going to win 100% of that state's EVs. Therefore what's the point of going to vote at all? Even if you DO want the Republican, you don't need to --- it's already done for you. Your time is entirely wasted regardless who you vote for.

 

[Pogo]

We have indeed had this discussion before, for two hundred years. Once the WTA ("winner take all") format started snowballing one of the Electoral College's champions, James Madison, called for a Constitutional Amendment that would ban that practice, even though it would have cost his home state of Virginia. So the discussion goes back at least that far.

The Electoral College was invented to act as a buffer between an electorate that was either uninformed about candidates due to the technological limitations of the time, or easily misled by a huckster, in order to subject the decision to better judgment. It was also tweaked to allot extra power to the slave states by counting their slave populations at the negotiated rate of 3/5 of a person (which persons received 0/5 of a vote), which was called "Slave Power".

Obviously technology has changed, slave states no longer exist, and various states have enacted clearly unConstitutional laws requiring their electors to vote WTA regardless of hucksters or better judgments. Today there's only one other country that elects its head of state which does so by indirect method, which is Pakistan.

The Electoral College needs to go literally yesterday. All it does is create the artificial bullshit divisive entities of "red states", "blue states" and "battleground states", none of which would exist without the WTA/EC; in so doing it perpetuates the Duopoly and ensures no third party will ever gain traction; it throws away the votes of millions as pointless, removing the incentive for most people to vote at all, resulting in abysmal turnout; and it ensures that "solid" states taken for granted will never see a candidate; and it makes the electorate dependent on polls to find out whether it's even worth getting out of bed on election day to vote at all. Because for most voters, it isn't.

Lets examine your dumb thoughts. If California and NY start making all decisions for every other state, how long do you think those other states will want to remain in the Union? You are so simplistic and naive. There is a reason we dont use a "popular vote" system.

And there's a reason nobody takes your posts seriously, which is that propensity to plug in strawman premises as if they're a fait accompli. You don't think that actually sells, do you?

Yeah sorry Doodles, if you wanna run with the ball of "California and NY making all decisions" the first thing you have to do is prove that ball exists. If you can do that, THEN you can run with it.

Wow, crushing your stupidity is super easy.

There are major benefits for the country when all states are involved in the process, rather than just the two or three high-voter states of California, New York and Massachusetts. If a few large states tried to get five justices of the Supreme Court to kill the electoral college on their own, we probably would see our second civil war.

Don’t abandon the electoral college — it’s good for our democracy

Electoral College – California Rules America Without the Constitution’s System | National Review

Ditching Electoral College would allow California to impose imperial rule on a colonial America - AEI

Without Electoral College, we'd live in real-life 'Hunger Games'

Wow, so "easy" you can't even make your own arguments. Doesn't get much "easier" than that.

Incidentally you didn't address your strawman. So it's being returned to sender for...


--- wait for it ----




"insufficient postage".


I kill me.

You didnt accept the information when it was coming from me, so i provided multiple other sources to prove my point. Dont say dumb things if you dont want to get called out on it.

Why don't you cite where any of those links make the case that "California and NY [would] start making all decisions for every other state". That was after all your claim.

 

[Wyatt earp]

I agree with you on eliminating the party labels on the ballot.

I also understand why you want the ghetto areas of the big cities to decide who is president. those votes are much easier to buy.

I made no such allusion at all, but I understand why you vote for the Strawman. Seems to be a popular choice here.

the truth is usually popular. when you favor doing away with the EC you favor letting the big cities choose our presidents, that's a simple fact.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

because there are more of them and they have a different agenda than people living in Idaho, or Montana or Louisiana, or Alabama. Without the EC four states would pick our presidents, Cal, TX, Ny, and Fl...with Cal having the biggest input. The voters in the other 46 would have zero to say about it if those 4 all voted the same way. That's why the founders put the EC in the constitution.

Well no it isn't, because when they did that Californy, Florida and Texas didn't exist. Nor for all practical purposes did cities, as we have them now.

Moreover you're STILL choosing to ignore that, without the automatic shitcanning of millions of, "blue" votes in Texas or "red" votes in New York (because that concept would not exist), the entire electorate would sea-change in the way it voted since those millions would now actually count, and therefore millions more, who don't bother to now, would have actual reason to show up. Yet you're plugging along as if nothing would change in those voting preferences.

You're in Louisiana. I used to be too. You and I both know that come POTUS election whoever the Republican is, is going to win 100% of that state's EVs. Therefore what's the point of going to vote at all? Even if you DO want the Republican, you don't need to --- it's already done for you. Your time is entirely wasted regardless who you vote for.

 

[Pogo]

I made no such allusion at all, but I understand why you vote for the Strawman. Seems to be a popular choice here.

the truth is usually popular. when you favor doing away with the EC you favor letting the big cities choose our presidents, that's a simple fact.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

because there are more of them and they have a different agenda than people living in Idaho, or Montana or Louisiana, or Alabama. Without the EC four states would pick our presidents, Cal, TX, Ny, and Fl...with Cal having the biggest input. The voters in the other 46 would have zero to say about it if those 4 all voted the same way. That's why the founders put the EC in the constitution.

But you think everyone in Cal, TX, NY and FL vote the same way or something?
I don't think that's true. I sure don't see how the EC is supposed to give states equal representation, since my state gets 4 and California gets 55. As a matter of fact, the states you listed are the 4 states with the most electoral votes.
So how does that make Maine equal with California, again? Somehow, I don't think it had anything to do with making it equal. That's the Senate's job.

I believe at one point there was a plan to have the Senators be the electors. Makes more sense. In answer to your paradox yes those states do have the most electoral votes but even so the EC takes the edgre off of the population disparity.

Jo

"takes the edgre off" huh. Wonder how Edgar feels about that.

We notice that summa y'all speak of this "population disparity" as if it were a negative, as if it's something to be penalized for.

Fact is, if most people wanted to live in Wyoming ---- they would.

 

[Godboy]

Why don't you cite where any of those links make the case that "California and NY [would] start making all decisions for every other state". That was after all your claim.

I guess you should have read the articles, then you wouldnt have these stupid questions.

 

[mudwhistle]

No. The EC is one of the best ideas we’ve come up with. I would prefer the President Elect be required to win both the EC as well as the PV. I’d be okay with saying they had to win the PV in 26 states (minimum) as well. Anything short of winning all 3 of those tallies; the House decides.

I would change the entire election system as well but thats not the question before us.

I would change it too.
I would make sure that Democrats couldn't count the votes anywhere. The counting would either be done by some trustworthy unbiased group randomly selected the day of the election so know one will know who is counting, or all done by PC to a central computer to remove the human element and the totals not announced till the winner was decided.
All voting machines would use retinal scanners eliminating multiple votes by the same person and prevent ballot box stuffing.

 

[Pogo]

I made no such allusion at all, but I understand why you vote for the Strawman. Seems to be a popular choice here.

the truth is usually popular. when you favor doing away with the EC you favor letting the big cities choose our presidents, that's a simple fact.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

because there are more of them and they have a different agenda than people living in Idaho, or Montana or Louisiana, or Alabama. Without the EC four states would pick our presidents, Cal, TX, Ny, and Fl...with Cal having the biggest input. The voters in the other 46 would have zero to say about it if those 4 all voted the same way. That's why the founders put the EC in the constitution.

Well no it isn't, because when they did that Californy, Florida and Texas didn't exist. Nor for all practical purposes did cities, as we have them now.

Moreover you're STILL choosing to ignore that, without the automatic shitcanning of millions of, "blue" votes in Texas or "red" votes in New York (because that concept would not exist), the entire electorate would sea-change in the way it voted since those millions would now actually count, and therefore millions more, who don't bother to now, would have actual reason to show up. Yet you're plugging along as if nothing would change in those voting preferences.

You're in Louisiana. I used to be too. You and I both know that come POTUS election whoever the Republican is, is going to win 100% of that state's EVs. Therefore what's the point of going to vote at all? Even if you DO want the Republican, you don't need to --- it's already done for you. Your time is entirely wasted regardless who you vote for.

View attachment 228922

That thar is bullshit.

What, New England doesn't even get to vote?

 

[Pogo]

No. The EC is one of the best ideas we’ve come up with. I would prefer the President Elect be required to win both the EC as well as the PV. I’d be okay with saying they had to win the PV in 26 states (minimum) as well. Anything short of winning all 3 of those tallies; the House decides.

I would change the entire election system as well but thats not the question before us.

I would change it too.
I would make sure that Democrats couldn't count the votes anywhere. The counting would either be done by some trustworthy unbiased group randomly selected the day of the election do know one will know who is counting, or all done by PC to a centeral computer to remove the human element and the totals not announced till the winner was decided.

Katherine Harris finds this post hifuckinlarious. And Ken Blackwell agrees.

 

[OldLady]

Update for you, Pogo . The judge in a preliminary ruling did not stop the ranked choice voting from continuing, and Poliquin, who brought the suit to stop it, lost to his opponent by a hair (50.5 Golden, 49.5 Poliquin). Now we wait to see what the federal court's ruling is on the constitutionality of RCV.

I'd like to see somebody ask this guy to cite that part of the Constitution he thinks applies.

For what it's worth, Pogo. I couldn't tell you what it all means.

Poliquin’s lawsuit claims the use of ranked-choice voting violates the U.S. Constitution because the document “sets a plurality vote as the qualification for election” to Congress. However, the U.S. Constitution does not mention plurality or ranked-choice voting,

Poliquin sues to stop ranked-choice count, saying process could be illegal

 

[Wyatt earp]

the truth is usually popular. when you favor doing away with the EC you favor letting the big cities choose our presidents, that's a simple fact.

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

because there are more of them and they have a different agenda than people living in Idaho, or Montana or Louisiana, or Alabama. Without the EC four states would pick our presidents, Cal, TX, Ny, and Fl...with Cal having the biggest input. The voters in the other 46 would have zero to say about it if those 4 all voted the same way. That's why the founders put the EC in the constitution.

But you think everyone in Cal, TX, NY and FL vote the same way or something?
I don't think that's true. I sure don't see how the EC is supposed to give states equal representation, since my state gets 4 and California gets 55. As a matter of fact, the states you listed are the 4 states with the most electoral votes.
So how does that make Maine equal with California, again? Somehow, I don't think it had anything to do with making it equal. That's the Senate's job.

I believe at one point there was a plan to have the Senators be the electors. Makes more sense. In answer to your paradox yes those states do have the most electoral votes but even so the EC takes the edgre off of the population disparity.

Jo

"takes the edgre off" huh. Wonder how Edgar feels about that.

We notice that summa y'all speak of this "population disparity" as if it were a negative, as if it's something to be penalized for.

Fact is, if most people wanted to live in Wyoming ---- they would.

We are 50 separate country's United , that's what you can never comprehend



.

 

[Pogo]

Why don't you cite where any of those links make the case that "California and NY [would] start making all decisions for every other state". That was after all your claim.

I guess you should have read the articles, then you wouldnt have these stupid questions.

Sooooooooooo there's nothing in any of them you can cite.

Kinda figured.

 

[mudwhistle]

No. The EC is one of the best ideas we’ve come up with. I would prefer the President Elect be required to win both the EC as well as the PV. I’d be okay with saying they had to win the PV in 26 states (minimum) as well. Anything short of winning all 3 of those tallies; the House decides.

I would change the entire election system as well but thats not the question before us.

I would change it too.
I would make sure that Democrats couldn't count the votes anywhere. The counting would either be done by some trustworthy unbiased group randomly selected the day of the election do know one will know who is counting, or all done by PC to a centeral computer to remove the human element and the totals not announced till the winner was decided.

Katherine Harris finds this post hifuckinlarious. And Ken Blackwell agrees.

Katherine Harris likes to follow the law, and Democrats like to break the law.

 

[Pogo]

I don't understand how that works. If it is one man, one vote, doesn't that mean that every person who votes in the country, regardless of where they live, has the same say in chosing the Pres? Why would people in the cities have more say than someone living in Idaho?

because there are more of them and they have a different agenda than people living in Idaho, or Montana or Louisiana, or Alabama. Without the EC four states would pick our presidents, Cal, TX, Ny, and Fl...with Cal having the biggest input. The voters in the other 46 would have zero to say about it if those 4 all voted the same way. That's why the founders put the EC in the constitution.

But you think everyone in Cal, TX, NY and FL vote the same way or something?
I don't think that's true. I sure don't see how the EC is supposed to give states equal representation, since my state gets 4 and California gets 55. As a matter of fact, the states you listed are the 4 states with the most electoral votes.
So how does that make Maine equal with California, again? Somehow, I don't think it had anything to do with making it equal. That's the Senate's job.

I believe at one point there was a plan to have the Senators be the electors. Makes more sense. In answer to your paradox yes those states do have the most electoral votes but even so the EC takes the edgre off of the population disparity.

Jo

"takes the edgre off" huh. Wonder how Edgar feels about that.

We notice that summa y'all speak of this "population disparity" as if it were a negative, as if it's something to be penalized for.

Fact is, if most people wanted to live in Wyoming ---- they would.

We are 50 separate country's United , that's what you can never comprehend

Ironically enough this addressed nothing about what I just posted, so tell us about inability to comprehend.