Maryland has officially taken first step to succeed the union

[Rustic]

Could you imagine if Blue States were able to secede? We would have to build walls to keep out poor, ignorant and uneducated right wingers who can't speak understandable English and who want to take our kids minimum wage jobs. We can't let that happen.

This is how it would be divided up if you went by red and blue votes...

 

[Pogo]

>> Raskin, a Democrat, said he hoped Maryland's support for the idea will start a national discussion and "kick off an insurrection among spectator states - the states that are completely bypassed and sidelined" during presidential campaigns.

"Going by the national popular vote will reawaken politics in every part of the country," Raskin said. <<​

Good idea. That's a band-aid at least.

Now if just Ca. will follow.

Maryland sidesteps electoral college

We don't need California to follow -- we need all the states to follow

But they tried it there:

>> California lawmakers adopted the measure last year, but Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

National Popular Vote, a group that supports the change, said there are legislative sponsors for the idea in 47 states. Ryan O'Donnell, a spokesman for the group, described O'Malley's decision to sign the legislation as "an open invitation" for other states to join Maryland.

But not everyone is buying into the idea. North Dakota and Montana rejected it earlier this year. Opponents say the change would hurt small rural states, where the percentage of the national vote would be even smaller than the three electoral votes they each have in the overall Electoral College. <<

Boo the **** hoo. It's supposed to be "one man one vote" not "one state one vote".
Doesn't "hurt small rural states" at all It would in fact do the same thing for them that it does everywhere else ---- reenfranchise all of their population who dissents from their states "all or nothing" EV farce, which effectively means those voters have NO VOTE at all. And that discourages voting. That can't be more obvious.

Well discouraging voting is never a good thing.

You can't help being a stupid ************, absolutely without the EC people in small rural states might as will not even vote because a state like California would make their votes mean nothing. More people voted in more states for Donald Trump that is why we have the EC. The founders were genius in this matter. Fact

Ummmm no Dippy, the Founders didn't do it -- the 12th Amendment did it. And it did it because of slavery and the relative power (at the time) of slave states versus free states. That was when they decided a slave was three-fifths of a person .... that is, for the purpose of counting population and awarding EVs.

But of course those slaves, even three-fifths of them, had no vote anyway so the EC in effect voted for them regardless what they would have wanted.

Well guess what Dippy. That's still what it does, because if ChrisL in Massachusetts wants to vote Trump, she can't. She can cast a vote that says that, but her state ignores that and sends ALL their EVs to Clinton. Unanimously.

Guess what that means, Dippy.

It means she HAS NO VOTE. It means she can go vote Trump, vote Clinton, vote Johnson, or stay home and cast no vote at all, and all of them carry exactly the same result, because the EV system already decided that for her and there's not a damn thing in the world she can do about it.

And that discourages people like her from voting because what's the point?

Any questions?


It has jack ******* squat to do with "rural states" and that argument is completely unwashable.

By founders I mean the constitution…
You don't understand, a pure popular vote is just mob rule. We live in a republic not a shit eating democracy.
If They got rid of the electoral college and went with just the popular vote no one in small rural states would vote because their vote would mean nothing. There is more votes in the state of California than the whole flyover part of the country... fact
Basically California would have total control over flyover country with their fucked up progress views.

Oh ******* horseshit.

Number one IT'S NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. It's in the Twelfth Amendment, passed early in the 19th century. I just TOLD you that. And I told you what its purpose was too. Did it sting?

Number two a PV is not "mob rule". Guess what Dipstick it's already how you elect your governors and senators and Congresscritters and everyone else you vote for.

Number three California's larger population is why it has more EVs and ND has fewer. And they're all proprotional.

THAT isn't the issue.

The issue is that except for Nebraska and Maine they're all awarded "winner take all". That means a Democratic POTUS candy has no chance in North Dakota and a Republican one has no chance in California --- because it's already decided for them regardless how any individual voter votes.

And even in those two states' cases the districts are very large, meaning that everyone within that district is STILL saddled with the same disenfranchisement.

All of which means, it's what we have now where significant swaths of people have a vote that means nothing. A PV would give meaning to those minority voters EVERYWHERE. Including California, including North Dakota, including EVERYTHING.

Holy shit sometimes I just want to reach through the screen and shake some of you morons.

 

[Lewdog]

Why is it wrong for the person who gets the most individual votes to be POTUS? Why should a person's vote in Vermont be worth more than a person's vote in Texas?

Been explained more then once it is not our fault you are incapable of independent thought or able to read.

No... I'm listening to the excuses you give, but that's just excuses. We are ALL U.S. citizens, there is no reason that one U.S. citizen's vote should be worth more than someone else's based simply on where they live.

 

[Rustic]

Why is it wrong for the person who gets the most individual votes to be POTUS? Why should a person's vote in Vermont be worth more than a person's vote in Texas?

The person who gets the most votes in the most states is the reason for the EC. With just a popular vote the high population centers would have all the power, and the local population areas would have no power. That's just the facts

 

[Tilly]

Article is dated 2007

 

[Lewdog]

Why is it wrong for the person who gets the most individual votes to be POTUS? Why should a person's vote in Vermont be worth more than a person's vote in Texas?

The person who gets the most votes in the most states is the reason for the EC. With just a popular vote the high population centers would have all the power, and the local population areas would have no power. That's just the facts

So you if you live in NY, California, or Texas, you don't have a problem with that fact that your vote isn't worth as much as someone else's in Kentucky, Nebraska, or Idaho?

 

[Spare_change]

Now if just Ca. will follow.

Maryland sidesteps electoral college

Only one little problem ---- it's unconstitutional ---- but a nice symbolic gesture, anyway.

 

[Pogo]

Could you imagine if Blue States were able to secede? We would have to build walls to keep out poor, ignorant and uneducated right wingers who can't speak understandable English and who want to take our kids minimum wage jobs. We can't let that happen.

This is how it would be divided up if you went by red and blue votes...

Again-- no Dippy. That's how it looks going by LAND AREA. Acres don't vote. PEOPLE do.

This is how it actually looks based on vote density (from 2012):

​

See any state lines there? No. 'That's because state lines are artificial.
See any delineated counties? Again, no because counties don't vote unanimously as your map implies.

Stop thinking like a binary bot.

 

[SwimExpert]

Now if just Ca. will follow.

Maryland sidesteps electoral college

Its just Maryland throwing a hissy fit. Gonna be a lot of that.

Actually, moron, if you paid attention you'd see that the link is from 2007. Under the law, Maryland will award its electoral votes to the person who wins the nation wide popular vote, if a majority of the several states adopt the same system. Until that happens, Maryland's electors will continue to be awarded under the "old" system, i.e. to the person who wins the popular vote within the state.

Its Maryland throwing a hissy fit clown. Now get lost. Doesn't matter WHEN its from they are throwing a hissy fit.

Yeah. We were throwing a hissy fit about Trump's election, a whole nine years before it happened.

You really do love drinking that Flint, Michigan water, don't you?

 

[Flopper]

Now if just Ca. will follow.

Maryland sidesteps electoral college

Yeah but what does it accomplish other taking away the people of Maryland's right to choose a president? Neither Red states nor traditional battleground states would pass such a law.

 

[SwimExpert]

Now if just Ca. will follow.

Maryland sidesteps electoral college

Only one little problem ---- it's unconstitutional ---- but a nice symbolic gesture, anyway.

How the hell do you figure that? ******* moron.

 

[Rustic]

>> Raskin, a Democrat, said he hoped Maryland's support for the idea will start a national discussion and "kick off an insurrection among spectator states - the states that are completely bypassed and sidelined" during presidential campaigns.

"Going by the national popular vote will reawaken politics in every part of the country," Raskin said. <<​

Good idea. That's a band-aid at least.

Now if just Ca. will follow.

Maryland sidesteps electoral college

We don't need California to follow -- we need all the states to follow

But they tried it there:

>> California lawmakers adopted the measure last year, but Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

National Popular Vote, a group that supports the change, said there are legislative sponsors for the idea in 47 states. Ryan O'Donnell, a spokesman for the group, described O'Malley's decision to sign the legislation as "an open invitation" for other states to join Maryland.

But not everyone is buying into the idea. North Dakota and Montana rejected it earlier this year. Opponents say the change would hurt small rural states, where the percentage of the national vote would be even smaller than the three electoral votes they each have in the overall Electoral College. <<

Boo the **** hoo. It's supposed to be "one man one vote" not "one state one vote".
Doesn't "hurt small rural states" at all It would in fact do the same thing for them that it does everywhere else ---- reenfranchise all of their population who dissents from their states "all or nothing" EV farce, which effectively means those voters have NO VOTE at all. And that discourages voting. That can't be more obvious.

Well discouraging voting is never a good thing.

You can't help being a stupid ************, absolutely without the EC people in small rural states might as will not even vote because a state like California would make their votes mean nothing. More people voted in more states for Donald Trump that is why we have the EC. The founders were genius in this matter. Fact

Ummmm no Dippy, the Founders didn't do it -- the 12th Amendment did it. And it did it because of slavery and the relative power (at the time) of slave states versus free states. That was when they decided a slave was three-fifths of a person .... that is, for the purpose of counting population and awarding EVs.

But of course those slaves, even three-fifths of them, had no vote anyway so the EC in effect voted for them regardless what they would have wanted.

Well guess what Dippy. That's still what it does, because if ChrisL in Massachusetts wants to vote Trump, she can't. She can cast a vote that says that, but her state ignores that and sends ALL their EVs to Clinton. Unanimously.

Guess what that means, Dippy.

It means she HAS NO VOTE. It means she can go vote Trump, vote Clinton, vote Johnson, or stay home and cast no vote at all, and all of them carry exactly the same result, because the EV system already decided that for her and there's not a damn thing in the world she can do about it.

And that discourages people like her from voting because what's the point?

Any questions?


It has jack ******* squat to do with "rural states" and that argument is completely unwashable.

By founders I mean the constitution…
You don't understand, a pure popular vote is just mob rule. We live in a republic not a shit eating democracy.
If They got rid of the electoral college and went with just the popular vote no one in small rural states would vote because their vote would mean nothing. There is more votes in the state of California than the whole flyover part of the country... fact
Basically California would have total control over flyover country with their fucked up progress views.

Oh ******* horseshit.

Number one IT'S NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. It's in the Twelfth Amendment, passed early in the 19th century. I just TOLD you that. And I told you what its purpose was too. Did it sting?

Number two a PV is not "mob rule". Guess what Dipstick it's already how you elect your governors and senators and Congresscritters and everyone else you vote for.

Number three California's larger population is why it has more EVs and ND has fewer. And they're all proprotional.

THAT isn't the issue.

The issue is that except for Nebraska and Maine they're all awarded "winner take all". That means a Democratic POTUS candy has no chance in North Dakota and a Republican one has no chance in California --- because it's already decided for them regardless how any individual voter votes.

And even in those two states' cases the districts are very large, meaning that everyone within that district is STILL saddled with the same disenfranchisement.

All of which means, it's what we have now where significant swaths of people have a vote that means nothing. A PV would give meaning to those minority voters EVERYWHERE. Including California, including North Dakota, including EVERYTHING.

Holy shit sometimes I just want to reach through the screen and shake some of you morons. :banghead;

You're wrong, since the 10th amendment is pretty much disregarded by the federal government anymore. That is why the electoral college is An absolute necessity for the small states.
I Will put it in real simple terms for you, without the EC no one in small states would not bother to vote in presidential elections. Because states like New York and California would dominate all campaigning and attention.
You look at the map it's blueberries in a vast sea of red…
EC is put there for good reason, that each state has a say right now in their own business.

 

[Spare_change]

Why is it wrong for the person who gets the most individual votes to be POTUS? Why should a person's vote in Vermont be worth more than a person's vote in Texas?

The person who gets the most votes in the most states is the reason for the EC. With just a popular vote the high population centers would have all the power, and the local population areas would have no power. That's just the facts

So you if you live in NY, California, or Texas, you don't have a problem with that fact that your vote isn't worth as much as someone else's in Kentucky, Nebraska, or Idaho?

Nonsense. Clearly indicative of the ignorance prevalent on the left.

Contrary to your misinformation, election of the president is the result of a series of elections held in 51 states (including DC). The winner of each of those INDIVIDUAL elections is awarded the Electoral College votes for that state. The winner of the most electoral votes is declared President by the House of Representatives.

Every vote in New York counts for just as much as any other vote in New York. Every vote in Texas counts just as much as any other vote in Texas. It is immaterial at the national level.

Nice try to spread the ignorance, though.

 

[Bush92]

Maryland does not like protection of our system of federalism? Oh...coast elites hate the fact that the common man voted for their champion.

 

[Spare_change]

Now if just Ca. will follow.

Maryland sidesteps electoral college

Only one little problem ---- it's unconstitutional ---- but a nice symbolic gesture, anyway.

How the hell do you figure that? ******* moron.

I suggest you read Amendment 12 - to include its legal interpretation.

As for the ******* moron ---- are you REALLY so childish that you have to resort to name calling because you can't challenge the statement?

Why don't you grow the hell up, and start acting like an adult??

 

[Lewdog]

>> Raskin, a Democrat, said he hoped Maryland's support for the idea will start a national discussion and "kick off an insurrection among spectator states - the states that are completely bypassed and sidelined" during presidential campaigns.

"Going by the national popular vote will reawaken politics in every part of the country," Raskin said. <<​

Good idea. That's a band-aid at least.


We don't need California to follow -- we need all the states to follow

But they tried it there:

>> California lawmakers adopted the measure last year, but Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

National Popular Vote, a group that supports the change, said there are legislative sponsors for the idea in 47 states. Ryan O'Donnell, a spokesman for the group, described O'Malley's decision to sign the legislation as "an open invitation" for other states to join Maryland.

But not everyone is buying into the idea. North Dakota and Montana rejected it earlier this year. Opponents say the change would hurt small rural states, where the percentage of the national vote would be even smaller than the three electoral votes they each have in the overall Electoral College. <<

Boo the **** hoo. It's supposed to be "one man one vote" not "one state one vote".
Doesn't "hurt small rural states" at all It would in fact do the same thing for them that it does everywhere else ---- reenfranchise all of their population who dissents from their states "all or nothing" EV farce, which effectively means those voters have NO VOTE at all. And that discourages voting. That can't be more obvious.

Well discouraging voting is never a good thing.

You can't help being a stupid ************, absolutely without the EC people in small rural states might as will not even vote because a state like California would make their votes mean nothing. More people voted in more states for Donald Trump that is why we have the EC. The founders were genius in this matter. Fact

Ummmm no Dippy, the Founders didn't do it -- the 12th Amendment did it. And it did it because of slavery and the relative power (at the time) of slave states versus free states. That was when they decided a slave was three-fifths of a person .... that is, for the purpose of counting population and awarding EVs.

But of course those slaves, even three-fifths of them, had no vote anyway so the EC in effect voted for them regardless what they would have wanted.

Well guess what Dippy. That's still what it does, because if ChrisL in Massachusetts wants to vote Trump, she can't. She can cast a vote that says that, but her state ignores that and sends ALL their EVs to Clinton. Unanimously.

Guess what that means, Dippy.

It means she HAS NO VOTE. It means she can go vote Trump, vote Clinton, vote Johnson, or stay home and cast no vote at all, and all of them carry exactly the same result, because the EV system already decided that for her and there's not a damn thing in the world she can do about it.

And that discourages people like her from voting because what's the point?

Any questions?


It has jack ******* squat to do with "rural states" and that argument is completely unwashable.

By founders I mean the constitution…
You don't understand, a pure popular vote is just mob rule. We live in a republic not a shit eating democracy.
If They got rid of the electoral college and went with just the popular vote no one in small rural states would vote because their vote would mean nothing. There is more votes in the state of California than the whole flyover part of the country... fact
Basically California would have total control over flyover country with their fucked up progress views.

Oh ******* horseshit.

Number one IT'S NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. It's in the Twelfth Amendment, passed early in the 19th century. I just TOLD you that. And I told you what its purpose was too. Did it sting?

Number two a PV is not "mob rule". Guess what Dipstick it's already how you elect your governors and senators and Congresscritters and everyone else you vote for.

Number three California's larger population is why it has more EVs and ND has fewer. And they're all proprotional.

THAT isn't the issue.

The issue is that except for Nebraska and Maine they're all awarded "winner take all". That means a Democratic POTUS candy has no chance in North Dakota and a Republican one has no chance in California --- because it's already decided for them regardless how any individual voter votes.

And even in those two states' cases the districts are very large, meaning that everyone within that district is STILL saddled with the same disenfranchisement.

All of which means, it's what we have now where significant swaths of people have a vote that means nothing. A PV would give meaning to those minority voters EVERYWHERE. Including California, including North Dakota, including EVERYTHING.

Holy shit sometimes I just want to reach through the screen and shake some of you morons. :banghead;

You're wrong, since the 10th amendment is pretty much disregarded by the federal government anymore. That is why the electoral college is An absolute necessity for the small states.
I Will put it in real simple terms for you, without the EC no one in small states would not bother to vote in presidential elections. Because states like New York and California would dominate all campaigning and attention.
You look at the map it's blueberries in a vast sea of red…
EC is put there for good reason, that each state has a say right now in their own business.

Last time I checked, every state makes up the United States. So once again... just because you want to live in a cabin in the middle of 100 acres in Montana, your individual vote should be worth more than someone that pays $3,000 a month for a 200 square foot apartment in New York?

 

[Bush92]

Could you imagine if Blue States were able to secede? We would have to build walls to keep out poor, ignorant and uneducated right wingers who can't speak understandable English and who want to take our kids minimum wage jobs. We can't let that happen.

This is how it would be divided up if you went by red and blue votes...

So all the Democratic electors vote for winner of popular vote and all Trump electors vote according to state mandates and constitutional principle of federalism. Trump still wins.

 

[Spare_change]

Why is it wrong for the person who gets the most individual votes to be POTUS? Why should a person's vote in Vermont be worth more than a person's vote in Texas?

Absolute, unmitigated ignorance. Frankly, you simply don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Explain to me how a vote in Vermont competes with a vote in Texas.

 

[Rustic]

Could you imagine if Blue States were able to secede? We would have to build walls to keep out poor, ignorant and uneducated right wingers who can't speak understandable English and who want to take our kids minimum wage jobs. We can't let that happen.

This is how it would be divided up if you went by red and blue votes...

Again-- no Dippy. That's how it looks going by LAND AREA. Acres don't vote. PEOPLE do.

This is how it actually looks based on vote density (from 2012):

​

See any state lines there? No. 'That's because state lines are artificial.
See any delineated counties? Again, no because counties don't vote unanimously as your map implies.

Stop thinking like a binary bot.

No, it would be by district. Especially in the east where most of the land is privately owned.
Anyway, it's a moot point the electoral college is not going anywhere, it's only fair...

 

[Spare_change]

You can't help being a stupid ************, absolutely without the EC people in small rural states might as will not even vote because a state like California would make their votes mean nothing. More people voted in more states for Donald Trump that is why we have the EC. The founders were genius in this matter. Fact

Ummmm no Dippy, the Founders didn't do it -- the 12th Amendment did it. And it did it because of slavery and the relative power (at the time) of slave states versus free states. That was when they decided a slave was three-fifths of a person .... that is, for the purpose of counting population and awarding EVs.

But of course those slaves, even three-fifths of them, had no vote anyway so the EC in effect voted for them regardless what they would have wanted.

Well guess what Dippy. That's still what it does, because if ChrisL in Massachusetts wants to vote Trump, she can't. She can cast a vote that says that, but her state ignores that and sends ALL their EVs to Clinton. Unanimously.

Guess what that means, Dippy.

It means she HAS NO VOTE. It means she can go vote Trump, vote Clinton, vote Johnson, or stay home and cast no vote at all, and all of them carry exactly the same result, because the EV system already decided that for her and there's not a damn thing in the world she can do about it.

And that discourages people like her from voting because what's the point?

Any questions?


It has jack ******* squat to do with "rural states" and that argument is completely unwashable.

By founders I mean the constitution…
You don't understand, a pure popular vote is just mob rule. We live in a republic not a shit eating democracy.
If They got rid of the electoral college and went with just the popular vote no one in small rural states would vote because their vote would mean nothing. There is more votes in the state of California than the whole flyover part of the country... fact
Basically California would have total control over flyover country with their fucked up progress views.

Oh ******* horseshit.

Number one IT'S NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. It's in the Twelfth Amendment, passed early in the 19th century. I just TOLD you that. And I told you what its purpose was too. Did it sting?

Number two a PV is not "mob rule". Guess what Dipstick it's already how you elect your governors and senators and Congresscritters and everyone else you vote for.

Number three California's larger population is why it has more EVs and ND has fewer. And they're all proprotional.

THAT isn't the issue.

The issue is that except for Nebraska and Maine they're all awarded "winner take all". That means a Democratic POTUS candy has no chance in North Dakota and a Republican one has no chance in California --- because it's already decided for them regardless how any individual voter votes.

And even in those two states' cases the districts are very large, meaning that everyone within that district is STILL saddled with the same disenfranchisement.

All of which means, it's what we have now where significant swaths of people have a vote that means nothing. A PV would give meaning to those minority voters EVERYWHERE. Including California, including North Dakota, including EVERYTHING.

Holy shit sometimes I just want to reach through the screen and shake some of you morons. :banghead;

You're wrong, since the 10th amendment is pretty much disregarded by the federal government anymore. That is why the electoral college is An absolute necessity for the small states.
I Will put it in real simple terms for you, without the EC no one in small states would not bother to vote in presidential elections. Because states like New York and California would dominate all campaigning and attention.
You look at the map it's blueberries in a vast sea of red…
EC is put there for good reason, that each state has a say right now in their own business.

Last time I checked, every state makes up the United States. So once again... just because you want to live in a cabin in the middle of 100 acres in Montana, your individual vote should be worth more than someone that pays $3,000 a month for a 200 square foot apartment in New York?

Lose it ----- you're embarrassing yourself.