- Sep 27, 2012
- 92,164
- 53,797
- 2,605
Fuuuuuuuuuck a popular vote.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
How to fix the Electoral Vote. Every State should have one vote
- Thread starter kaz
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #22
Yes, God forbid we discuss things here. Its not like it was the point or anything.States are our unit of government. The Federal government was supposed to be a thin layer over the States primarily providing for our defense and little else. Power was to remain in the States where the people could decide what sort of government they want and have control over that.
In the UN, bigger countries get no more say than small ones. We pay the majority of UN bills ourselves and we get nothing for it. Why should California get over 18 times the votes Alaska gets? Each one is a State. Why do California and other big States get disproportionate rule over the small States? Neither should have more say over the other who our leader should be than the other.
In the legislature, there is no such problem. Big States can't run roughshod over the small ones because of the Senate and the small ones can't dominate the big ones because of the House. But for President, we have no such protection. Each State should get one and only one vote
All you have to do is get a Congressman to sponsor an Amendment to the Constitution, get it passed by the Congress and approved by the states. Starting now!
Of course it would take a Constitutional Amendment. I didn't say how we get there, only the way I think it should work. I mean duh
You are entitled to your opinion. That and $5 will get you a cup at Starbucks.
This has been discussed and discussed and discussed and discussed and discussed and..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................discussed.
Who advocated one vote per State?
And I clearly and accurately titled the thread, so fuck you. Don't click on threads accurately marked then keep arguing you don't want to discuss it. Cut the stupid shit. Discuss it or go away and when you see it again, the thread will still be accurately entitled
- Mar 3, 2013
- 81,830
- 43,153
- 2,605
Why don't you tell us how the world you live in worksSomeone does not understand the way the world works. Yikes.
- May 20, 2009
- 144,554
- 66,972
- 2,330
So whoever gets the majority of our 57 states, wins
Boss
Take a Memo:
I totally agree on appealing the 17th amendment. That one was worse than the Income tax, and for the reason you said. Power divided is power checked. Senators should be responsible to State legislatures. Eliminating that check and balance is one of the greatest mistakes we ever made. As for you wanting to move towards the PV, again, I totally disagree with your view California should have a disproportional say in how other States operate
Oh no... I DON'T want to move to a popular vote! NEVER!!
What I was saying was, the Electoral Votes should be proportional to the popular vote in each state. Some states do this and some don't, it's winner-take-all. I think it's more fair to apportion the Electoral Votes according to the popular vote instead of the winner taking ALL the electors of any state.
Some Liberals are currently pushing an idea to have their respective states adopt a resolution to appoint electors to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. I disagree with that strongly.
Your idea shifts the power in favor of the states TOO much in my opinion. Why should a state with 200k people have the same "voting power" as a state with 38 million people?
- Thread starter
- #26
States are our unit of government. The Federal government was supposed to be a thin layer over the States primarily providing for our defense and little else. Power was to remain in the States where the people could decide what sort of government they want and have control over that.
In the UN, bigger countries get no more say than small ones. We pay the majority of UN bills ourselves and we get nothing for it. Why should California get over 18 times the votes Alaska gets? Each one is a State. Why do California and other big States get disproportionate rule over the small States? Neither should have more say over the other who our leader should be than the other.
In the legislature, there is no such problem. Big States can't run roughshod over the small ones because of the Senate and the small ones can't dominate the big ones because of the House. But for President, we have no such protection. Each State should get one and only one vote
that doesn't "fix" the electoral college, dum dum. the votes of someone in north Dakota shouldn't be worth more than the vote of someone from new York.
or does the concept of one person, one vote confuse you?
Here's an idea. Address my argument in the OP
- Mar 31, 2009
- 94,782
- 71,248
- 3,605
The Electoral has been used for like forever and the one side loses due to it and then they demand change...stop trying to out think wise men who came up with a good system that ensures a few densely populated states can control the vote of an entire nation.
Also, get over it already, she lost
Also, get over it already, she lost
Popular vote is the only fair way to elect a president. One person - one vote.
- Thread starter
- #29
States are our unit of government. The Federal government was supposed to be a thin layer over the States primarily providing for our defense and little else. Power was to remain in the States where the people could decide what sort of government they want and have control over that.
In the UN, bigger countries get no more say than small ones. We pay the majority of UN bills ourselves and we get nothing for it. Why should California get over 18 times the votes Alaska gets? Each one is a State. Why do California and other big States get disproportionate rule over the small States? Neither should have more say over the other who our leader should be than the other.
In the legislature, there is no such problem. Big States can't run roughshod over the small ones because of the Senate and the small ones can't dominate the big ones because of the House. But for President, we have no such protection. Each State should get one and only one vote
How about this:
Eliminate the electoral college altogether. Who ever wins the majority of the states via popular vote (in each individual state) wins the election. If both candidates win 25 states each, then we could use the standard already in place. Let congress be the tiebreaker.
I'm not sure how that's different than my proposal other than adding the tie breaker. I guess I didn't say popular vote in the States, but that was my intention
- Mar 31, 2009
- 94,782
- 71,248
- 3,605
Popular vote is the only fair way to elect a president. One person - one vote.
Whether it be by an illegal or a citizen...right Pokeyhontos ?
- Thread starter
- #31
Popular vote is the only fair way to elect a president. One person - one vote.
That's not how our country was designed. Rather than ignoring that our Constitution was written for ... States ... to be the primary unit of government in this country, you should try to repeal the Constitution and write one that is what you want and isn't the one we have
- Thread starter
- #33
Popular vote is the only fair way to elect a president. One person - one vote.
Whether it be by an illegal or a citizen...right Pokeyhontos ?
Don't forget we're disenfranchising the dead and pluralistic voters
- Nov 26, 2011
- 123,655
- 57,600
- 2,290
The Electoral College doesn't need to be fixed. It ain't broken.How to fix the Electoral Vote. Every State should have one vote
- Mar 3, 2013
- 81,830
- 43,153
- 2,605
Why don't you tell us how the world you live in worksSomeone does not understand the way the world works. Yikes.
Well, it sure as shit doesn't work with the EC awarding each state with one fucking vote, cupcake.
Oh goody, deflection
(Now how did I know that was going to happen? Experience?)
Popular vote is the only fair way to elect a president. One person - one vote.
Whether it be by an illegal or a citizen...right Pokeyhontos ?
Don't forget we're disenfranchising the dead and pluralistic voters
Yeah, and don't forget to provide "credible" proof of that.
Boss
Take a Memo:
Popular vote is the only fair way to elect a president. One person - one vote.
No, that's called a pure democracy and there is a good reason the word is found nowhere in our Constitution. Our framers FEARED pure democracy because it's "mob rule" and it's important to note, many of your "civil rights" which are so cherished by the radical left, would not exist if we operated on the idea of pure democracy. It is precisely because we have a "republican" (small r) system, that we are able to enact legislation to protect minorities and individuals from the tyranny of the majority,
- Thread starter
- #38
I totally agree on appealing the 17th amendment. That one was worse than the Income tax, and for the reason you said. Power divided is power checked. Senators should be responsible to State legislatures. Eliminating that check and balance is one of the greatest mistakes we ever made. As for you wanting to move towards the PV, again, I totally disagree with your view California should have a disproportional say in how other States operate
Oh no... I DON'T want to move to a popular vote! NEVER!!
What I was saying was, the Electoral Votes should be proportional to the popular vote in each state. Some states do this and some don't, it's winner-take-all. I think it's more fair to apportion the Electoral Votes according to the popular vote instead of the winner taking ALL the electors of any state.
Some Liberals are currently pushing an idea to have their respective states adopt a resolution to appoint electors to the candidate who wins the national popular vote. I disagree with that strongly.
Your idea shifts the power in favor of the states TOO much in my opinion. Why should a state with 200k people have the same "voting power" as a state with 38 million people?
You look at this country and States have been completely undermined of their intended power. You correctly pointed that out with Senators. Since we were supposed to be a collection of States with a think Federal layer, primarily to defend us from foreign threats, why should California have more power over smaller States since they weren't intended to have any power over smaller States?
- Thread starter
- #39
Popular vote is the only fair way to elect a president. One person - one vote.
Whether it be by an illegal or a citizen...right Pokeyhontos ?
Don't forget we're disenfranchising the dead and pluralistic voters
Yeah, and don't forget to provide "credible" proof of that.
Read the 10th amendment, then the 9th. Check and mate
- Mar 3, 2013
- 81,830
- 43,153
- 2,605
Popular vote is the only fair way to elect a president. One person - one vote.
and leave flyover country with no voice in who is electedPopular vote is the only fair way to elect a president.
Similar threads
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 98
- Replies
- 91
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 40
- Views
- 479
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 31
- Views
- 79
- Replies
- 176
- Views
- 682
- Replies
- 100
- Views
- 2K
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8088
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 471
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-