Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[justoffal]

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

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

Jo

You need to be more specific. Ultimate decider of what? Because if you're referring to Presidential elections, then you're full of shit. The States are represented in Congress, not in the Presidency.

Not sure what you're saying. I'm asking a question in general about popular vote versus representative government. If you want a brawl I can do that.

Jo

Popular vote....of what? You can't even answer that. Either you're too stupid to understand you're being pointlessly vague, or you're purposely doing it because you want to falsely frame the subject in terms that make it easy to go fishing with dynamite.

Are you immune to generalities?

Jo

 

[Stormy Daniels]

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

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

Jo

You need to be more specific. Ultimate decider of what? Because if you're referring to Presidential elections, then you're full of shit. The States are represented in Congress, not in the Presidency.

Not sure what you're saying. I'm asking a question in general about popular vote versus representative government. If you want a brawl I can do that.

Jo

Popular vote....of what? You can't even answer that. Either you're too stupid to understand you're being pointlessly vague, or you're purposely doing it because you want to falsely frame the subject in terms that make it easy to go fishing with dynamite.

Are you immune to generalities?

Jo

So....the latter. Trying to falsely frame the subject in terms that make it easy to go fishing with dynamite.

 

[justoffal]

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

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

Jo

You need to be more specific. Ultimate decider of what? Because if you're referring to Presidential elections, then you're full of shit. The States are represented in Congress, not in the Presidency.

Not sure what you're saying. I'm asking a question in general about popular vote versus representative government. If you want a brawl I can do that.

Jo

Popular vote....of what? You can't even answer that. Either you're too stupid to understand you're being pointlessly vague, or you're purposely doing it because you want to falsely frame the subject in terms that make it easy to go fishing with dynamite.

Are you immune to generalities?

Jo

So....the latter. Trying to falsely frame the subject in terms that make it easy to go fishing with dynamite.

Hmm.... Finding confrontation where there is none. That's a talent. However you're fairly ready to read. You're pissed that Hillary lost.

Jo

 

[LeftofLeft]

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

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

Jo

What if the popular vote says No to illegals crossing the Border? What if the majority says No to Gay Marriage? Aren’t Liberals supposed to be about the Minority?

Liberals need to ask themselves .. are they about true minority rights or are they most about what Libwrals deem to be Minority?

 

[justoffal]

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

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

Jo

What if the popular vote says No to illegals crossing the Border? What if the majority says No to Gay Marriage? Aren’t Liberals supposed to be about the Minority?

Liberals need to ask themselves .. are they about true minority rights or are they most about what Libwrals deem to be Minority?

Ba-da-bing! You totally nailed it!

Jo

 

[MrShangles]

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

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

Jo

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

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

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

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

One state can’t decide an election, that’s why we use electoral


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rustic]

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

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

Jo

Fuck no, we don’t want popular vote only system
We don’t want Mob rule..

 

[Rustic]

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

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

Jo

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

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

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

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

Wrong, small population states like the dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. might as not even vote in a popular vote because They don’t have the numbers to displace a city like Denver...
Pure Popular vote = mob rule

 

[Rustic]

I think your system is wise and was designed with careful thought and consideration. The Media concentration in NY and Cali can't use control and high populations to win election year after year. You are 50 States and it's beautifully designed with this in mind.

Try it in Canada then eh.

Your reasoning makes no sense. The "Media concentration in NY and Cali", whatever that is, has no influence on elections.

Take the same concept and apply it to a state (or province). Does the "media concentration in Omaha" use control and high population to win Nebraska elections year after year? Please.

Yeah it was designed with "careful thought and consideration" for the slaveholders of the 1700s.

Lol
Na, it Helps small states have a voice.
Fuck your pure popular vote... you fucking moron

 

[Rustic]

No

Mob rule is never a good thing

Tyrannies by the minority never end well

 

[Rustic]

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

The US without California will be like Uzbekistan.

Thhe US without crazy Cali is a lot more sane

 

[Rustic]

If you want mob rule, tyranny of the majority, then yes. There would be no check or balance against the majority. This is exactly what the founding fathers wanted to avoid. But, of course, liberals don't care what the founding fathers said or believed, and they're just fine with majority rule because they believe they're in the majority. Actually, though, as I've documented previously, if you add up all the votes in the 2016 election for the GOP, the Dems, and the three third-party candidates, the center-right vote was about 2 million more than the center-left vote.

That is why this country is supposed to be a republic not a shit eating democracy

 

[justoffal]

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

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

Jo

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

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

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

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

Wrong, small population states like the dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. might as not even vote in a popular vote because They don’t have the numbers to displace a city like Denver...
Pure Popular vote = mob rule

Also why would any sovereign state willingly
Just dissolve themselves? Think of it...200 some odd years after the founders of that territory trusted their future to the union that very same Union decides to erase that future.

Jo

 

[justoffal]

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

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

Jo

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

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

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

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

Wrong, small population states like the dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. might as not even vote in a popular vote because They don’t have the numbers to displace a city like Denver...
Pure Popular vote = mob rule

Also why would any sovereign state willingly
Just dissolve themselves? So now 200 plus years after the original founders of the state trusted their future to the union the union now decides to erase that future?


Jo

 

[justoffal]

I think your system is wise and was designed with careful thought and consideration. The Media concentration in NY and Cali can't use control and high populations to win election year after year. You are 50 States and it's beautifully designed with this in mind.

Try it in Canada then eh.

Your reasoning makes no sense. The "Media concentration in NY and Cali", whatever that is, has no influence on elections.

Take the same concept and apply it to a state (or province). Does the "media concentration in Omaha" use control and high population to win Nebraska elections year after year? Please.

Yeah it was designed with "careful thought and consideration" for the slaveholders of the 1700s.

Lol
Na, it Helps small states have a voice.
Fuck your pure popular vote... you fucking moron

Collectivists don't like states.

Jo

 

[Issa]

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

The US without California will be like Uzbekistan.

Thhe US without crazy Cali is a lot more sane

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

 

[Kondor3]

Re: Sanctuaries for Illegal Aliens...

Serve-up a six-month notice...

Any jurisdiction that refuses to actively assist DHS (ICE) in the apprehension of Illegals Aliens...

Shall be considered to be engaged in insurrection and rebellion against the United States of America...

Requiring an immediate response by Federal Regulars...

First stop... the Statehouse in Sacramento...

As US Marshalls lead the Governor and his entourage away in handcuffs and into waiting vans for booking on Federal charges.

 

[ThisIsMe]

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

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

Jo

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

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

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

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

Wrong, small population states like the dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. might as not even vote in a popular vote because They don’t have the numbers to displace a city like Denver...
Pure Popular vote = mob rule

But "states" are not supposed to elect a president, the people do. Why should the few speak for the many?

You can get to 270 EVs with just 9 states. So, if you could win those 9 states, that would be fair even if the other 41 states voted to the other candidate?

I understand that this would play in favor of Democrats, and would make it very hard for Republicans to win an election, but the way it works now, the few over rules the many. I mean, we can't be majority rule when it suits us, and then change when it doesn't.

Example, 70% of people disapproved of Obama care, yet we still got it, Republicans threw a fit about that. By the electoral college logic, people should have been just fine with that, since majority rule shouldn't matter.

 

[Rustic]

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

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

Jo

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

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

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

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

Wrong, small population states like the dakotas, Wyoming, Montana, Idaho etc. might as not even vote in a popular vote because They don’t have the numbers to displace a city like Denver...
Pure Popular vote = mob rule

But "states" are not supposed to elect a president, the people do. Why should the few speak for the many?

You can get to 270 EVs with just 9 states. So, if you could win those 9 states, that would be fair even if the other 41 states voted to the other candidate?

I understand that this would play in favor of Democrats, and would make it very hard for Republicans to win an election, but the way it works now, the few over rules the many. I mean, we can't be majority rule when it suits us, and then change when it doesn't.

Example, 70% of people disapproved of Obama care, yet we still got it, Republicans threw a fit about that. By the electoral college logic, people should have been just fine with that, since majority rule shouldn't matter.

We cant have the East and West Coast telling flyover what to do, especially when it comes to socialist entitlement programs like Obamacare.
Like I said the electoral college is genius, without it Rural America might as well will not even vote in presidential elections… Because with a pure popular vote they would have zero say in the direction of the country and running of their own states.

 

[Pogo]

I’d be okay with saying they had to win the PV in 26 states (minimum) as well.

This part is unworkable. All states are nowhere near created equal, which they would have to be for this exercise to be valid.