M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
Except when electing the President.One Person, One Vote.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Except when electing the President.One Person, One Vote.
If 5 big states where considered supreme by popular vote and referendum the rest of the nation would revolt .. and I'd agree with theminformative but it leaves out the winner-take-all effect.....which gives way to much clout to California. texas and NewYorkNo they don't, each State has more electorates for larger populations.
Example - Calif. 55 WY- 3
The only reason it's an issue right now is because the last census favored the republicans for a change rather than for the democrats who had it for the last 4 census.
What are you talking about??? Last census favored Republicans??
What I mean is mathematically the smaller states get a bigger bang for their buck (more electoral votes per person) than larger states.
It's actually very very simple math:
California: 38,802,500 / 55 = 705,500 people per EC vote
Texas: 26,956,958 / 38 = 709,393 people per EC vote
Wyoming: 584,153 / 3 = 194,717 people per EC vote
Hawaii: 1,419,561 / 4 = 354,890 people per EC vote
Those are some of the most extreme examples there are granted, but the math stays pretty consistent.
They have the most people, they should have the biggest voices. As for the losers in those winner take all elections...you simply can never make everyone happy, they chose to be on team California or team Texas. Their tribe has spoken, and it didn't go their way, too bad better luck next time.
I agree they should have the biggest voices...but not outsized voices.....when u figure in the winner-take-all....they have too much power
This is why I said the federal government cannot force the states to do this; that they each have to choose to do this on their own.The U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."As the entire idea is based on a false premise, I don't see it happening -- just saying that the states -can- choose to adopt this method for choosing their electors.50 of 50 times?This is true; the federal governmebt cannot pass this into law.If the states have selected a different method than the one mandated in the 'National Popular Vote' bill, then yes....it does make constitutional changes. As the authority to determine the method of elector selection belongs exclusively to the state. It can't be dictated by a national bill.
The states, however, can agree to do it themselves..
Good luck.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The entire idea is based on a false premise - funny how you refuse to address this.
Except when electing the President.One Person, One Vote.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?
This is why I said the federal government cannot force the states to do this; that they each have to choose to do this on their own.The U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."As the entire idea is based on a false premise, I don't see it happening -- just saying that the states -can- choose to adopt this method for choosing their electors.50 of 50 times?This is true; the federal governmebt cannot pass this into law.
The states, however, can agree to do it themselves..
Good luck.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The entire idea is based on a false premise - funny how you refuse to address this.
The federal government has nothing to do with the National Popular Vote bill.
States are enacting the National Popular Vote bill.
We have that already.The EC does not ensure the states equal and full participation when electing a president.Wow, this is very coherent and well-stated.
Did someone hack your account?
no it isnt...California is way way more equal than the rest based on the way things are done....and the small eastern states have relatively too much power also...it means the fly-over states get screwed.
And basing elections strictly on a majority in a popular vote would improve that how?
Analysts already say that only the 2016 winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So less than a handful of states will dominate and determine the presidential general election.
The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.
National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with direct democracy.
Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.
Let me ask you something. What is the goal of the "National Popular Vote" organization....not from the webpage but in your own words please.
One Person, One Vote.
We have that as well. No intrinsic power gives Texas to the GOP every election year. The Party and the voters in the State agree on a broad range of issues so Texas goes red.Every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.
That almost always happens now. I do not see how tinkering with the system would give us a different set of outcomes.The candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every election in the country.
States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.
And now we're back to the false premise upon which this entire idea is based, that the popular vote and the EC vote must agree on the winner.With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.Except when electing the President.One Person, One Vote.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.
We have that already.The EC does not ensure the states equal and full participation when electing a president.no it isnt...California is way way more equal than the rest based on the way things are done....and the small eastern states have relatively too much power also...it means the fly-over states get screwed.
And basing elections strictly on a majority in a popular vote would improve that how?
Analysts already say that only the 2016 winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So less than a handful of states will dominate and determine the presidential general election.
The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.
National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with direct democracy.
Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.
Let me ask you something. What is the goal of the "National Popular Vote" organization....not from the webpage but in your own words please.
One Person, One Vote.
We have that as well. No intrinsic power gives Texas to the GOP every election year. The Party and the voters in the State agree on a broad range of issues so Texas goes red.Every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.
As for my vote counting...in the current system, Democrats in Texas are pretty much wasting their votes...right? In the final analysis nationwide, if your person doesn't win, isn't that the same thing? Your voice isn't being heard.
That almost always happens now. I do not see how tinkering with the system would give us a different set of outcomes.The candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every election in the country.
States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.
First off, where is that written?
Secondly, if I need only a mass number of votes to win an election, the last place I will campaign is in the rural areas since there is no prize to speaking to a crowd of 3,000 when I could be speaking to a crowd of 10,000 in a larger city.
Nor am I buying advertising time in less populous states/areas when my ad dollars will go further in more populous areas.
If there is a good reason to kick the EC out, you're not presenting a better alternative in terms of empowering all Americans. A better plan seems to be to add another requirement--one that requires winning both the EC and the plurality of the Popular Vote. This would not change many outcomes either but then again, I think America gets it right almost every time.
My follow-up question to you is this; if you're going to make it where the popular vote is the determining factor and not artificially try to empower those in less populous areas, wouldn't it make more sense to simply up the % requirement to 60 or 70 percent as opposed to fifty?
Except when electing the President.One Person, One Vote.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?
With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.
Except when electing the President.One Person, One Vote.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?
With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.
Except when electing the President.One Person, One Vote.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?
With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.
Which would be a mob rule, a democracy with no representation for the minority.
Except when electing the President.One Person, One Vote.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?
With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.
Which would be a mob rule, a democracy with no representation for the minority.
Except when electing the President.One Person, One Vote.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?
With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.
Which would be a mob rule, a democracy with no representation for the minority.
No more so than any state election that involved a direct vote of the people. It would be simple majority rules.
Except when electing the President.One Person, One Vote.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?
With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.
Unless a state legislature changed their mind. Remember, any such compact would be unenforceable. As there's no constitutional basis for one state to force another to abide the compact if they choose to do differently.
So it would be a completely voluntary system.
And now we're back to the false premise upon which this entire idea is based, that the popular vote and the EC vote must agree on the winner.Every voter would be equal.No more so than any state election that involved a direct vote of the people. It would be simple majority rules.Which would be a mob rule, a democracy with no representation for the minority.With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.Except when electing the President.One Person, One Vote.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.
Every voter would matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes would win, as in virtually every other election in the country.
We have that already.The EC does not ensure the states equal and full participation when electing a president.And basing elections strictly on a majority in a popular vote would improve that how?
Analysts already say that only the 2016 winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So less than a handful of states will dominate and determine the presidential general election.
The indefensible reality is that more than 99% of presidential campaign attention (ad spending and visits) was invested on voters in just the only ten competitive states in 2012
The National Popular Vote bill preserves the constitutionally mandated Electoral College and state control of elections. It ensures that every voter is equal, every voter will matter, in every state, in every presidential election, and the candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every other election in the country.
Under National Popular Vote, every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election. Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.
National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with direct democracy.
Direct democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government.
Let me ask you something. What is the goal of the "National Popular Vote" organization....not from the webpage but in your own words please.
One Person, One Vote.
We have that as well. No intrinsic power gives Texas to the GOP every election year. The Party and the voters in the State agree on a broad range of issues so Texas goes red.Every voter, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in every presidential election.
Every vote would matter in the state counts and national count.
As for my vote counting...in the current system, Democrats in Texas are pretty much wasting their votes...right? In the final analysis nationwide, if your person doesn't win, isn't that the same thing? Your voice isn't being heard.
That almost always happens now. I do not see how tinkering with the system would give us a different set of outcomes.The candidate with the most votes wins, as in virtually every election in the country.
States have the responsibility and power to make all of their voters relevant in every presidential election and beyond.
First off, where is that written?
Secondly, if I need only a mass number of votes to win an election, the last place I will campaign is in the rural areas since there is no prize to speaking to a crowd of 3,000 when I could be speaking to a crowd of 10,000 in a larger city.
Nor am I buying advertising time in less populous states/areas when my ad dollars will go further in more populous areas.
If there is a good reason to kick the EC out, you're not presenting a better alternative in terms of empowering all Americans. A better plan seems to be to add another requirement--one that requires winning both the EC and the plurality of the Popular Vote. This would not change many outcomes either but then again, I think America gets it right almost every time.
My follow-up question to you is this; if you're going to make it where the popular vote is the determining factor and not artificially try to empower those in less populous areas, wouldn't it make more sense to simply up the % requirement to 60 or 70 percent as opposed to fifty?
And this far left drone just laid out the far left plan on how they campaign..
And now we're back to the false premise upon which this entire idea is based, that the popular vote and the EC vote must agree on the winner.With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.Except when electing the President.One Person, One Vote.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.
You understand that you cannot get past this false premise, which is why you refuse to address it.
This is why I said the federal government cannot force the states to do this; that they each have to choose to do this on their own.The U.S. Constitution says "Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors . . ."As the entire idea is based on a false premise, I don't see it happening -- just saying that the states -can- choose to adopt this method for choosing their electors.50 of 50 times?
Good luck.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly characterized the authority of the state legislatures over the manner of awarding their electoral votes as "plenary" and "exclusive."
The entire idea is based on a false premise - funny how you refuse to address this.
The federal government has nothing to do with the National Popular Vote bill.
States are enacting the National Popular Vote bill.
The electoral college does not affect state elections only national presidential elections..
Just because someone may win the popular vote does not mean they have to give their electoral votes to that person..
Except when electing the President.One Person, One Vote.
Then, its 1 person = 0 votes.
Why do you refuse to understand this?
With National Popular Vote, every voter in every state would equal 1 vote.
The winner of the most national popular votes would win the presidency.
Which would be a mob rule, a democracy with no representation for the minority.
National Popular Vote has NOTHING TO DO with pure democracy.
Pure democracy is a form of government in which people vote on all policy initiatives directly.
With National Popular Vote, the United States would still be a republic, in which citizens continue to elect the President by a majority of Electoral College votes by states, to represent us and conduct the business of government
The National Popular Vote bill would end the disproportionate attention and influence of the "mob" in the current handful of closely divided battleground states, such as Ohio and Florida, while the "mobs" of the vast majority of states are ignored.
9 states determined the 2012 election.
Analysts already say that only the 2016 winner of Florida, Ohio, Virginia, Wisconsin, Colorado, Iowa and New Hampshire is not a foregone conclusion. So less than a handful of states again will dominate and determine the presidential general election.
10 of the original 13 states are politically irrelevant in presidential campaigns now. They aren’t polled or visited.
None of the 10 most rural states matter
24 of the 27 lowest population states, that are non-competitive are ignored, in presidential elections.
4 out of 5 Americans were ignored in the 2012 presidential election. After being nominated, Obama visited just eight closely divided battleground states, and Romney visited only 10. These 10 states accounted for 98% of the $940 million spent on campaign advertising.
Candidates do not bother to advertise or organize in 80% of the states.
The current system does not provide some kind of check on the "mobs." There have been 22,991 electoral votes cast since presidential elections became competitive (in 1796), and only 17 have been cast for someone other than the candidate nominated by the elector's own political party. 1796 remains the only instance when the elector might have thought, at the time he voted, that his vote might affect the national outcome.
The electors are and will be dedicated party activists of the winning party who meet briefly in mid-December to cast their totally predictable rubberstamped votes in accordance with their pre-announced pledges.
The U.S. Supreme Court has upheld state laws guaranteeing faithful voting by presidential electors (because the states have plenary power over presidential electors).
Yes.The whole point is that the National Popular Vote bill would change the current system, by making the popular vote and the EC vote agree on the winner.
So what?Okay...
Here is a map of the travels of the candidates after their parties conventions: