Should the popular vote be the ultimate decider?

[frigidweirdo]

Why would I want Communists in New York City metro, and L.A. metro dictating to me?

Because they are the majority.

Why would I want the inbred, bible thumping assholes ******* their cousins in the Red States dictating to me?

If you believe that bovine excrement, you are one sick individual.

He's sick because the majority should get to choose the president?

Personally I'd love to see PR in the House, so that when it comes to Presidential elections more viable parties are present. Then a run off system like France where the best two go against each other in a second round.

 

[Doc1]

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.

"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".

Your lack of knowledge concerning the document is glaring.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Why would I want Communists in New York City metro, and L.A. metro dictating to me?

Because they are the majority.

Why would I want the inbred, bible thumping assholes ******* their cousins in the Red States dictating to me?

/———/ —Pew Research: The share of independents in the public, which long ago surpassed the percentages of either Democrats or Republicans, continues to increase. Based on 2014 data, 39% identify as independents, 32% as Democrats and 23% as Republicans. This is the highest percentage of independents in more than 75 years of public opinion polling.

 

[Cellblock2429]

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're not exactly being truthful here.

Why would the popular vote not work "in a large nation"?

You're basically telling me that the larger a nation is, the less democracy there should be because.... oh, wait, you didn't say why.

Brazil uses a popular vote system with two rounds. They have a population of 210 million people. The system "works".

I don't understand what "works" means here.

The EC system "works" as in it puts a person into the presidency the same as a popular vote system does, the same as China's system does.

Are you saying it won't "work" as in the right wing will not get an overly easy ride therefore you don't like it, therefore it doesn't "work"? How would it not work?

What is it about democracy that you don't like?

/——/ I don’t like anything about democracy- it’s just mob rules. Thankfully we live in a Republic. Haven’t you be taught this 1,000 times already?

 

[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're not exactly being truthful here.

Why would the popular vote not work "in a large nation"?

You're basically telling me that the larger a nation is, the less democracy there should be because.... oh, wait, you didn't say why.

Brazil uses a popular vote system with two rounds. They have a population of 210 million people. The system "works".

I don't understand what "works" means here.

The EC system "works" as in it puts a person into the presidency the same as a popular vote system does, the same as China's system does.

Are you saying it won't "work" as in the right wing will not get an overly easy ride therefore you don't like it, therefore it doesn't "work"? How would it not work?

What is it about democracy that you don't like?

That's the point this is not really what you would call a large homogeneous Nation like Japan or even China where one culture stretches across the width and breadth of the entire nation. Instead this is a very large and powerful conglomeration of many little Nations. It's an important aspect that adds both flexibility and durability to the union and must never be forgotten in a race to eliminate the states right's or boundaries.

Jo

 

[Pilot1]

Remember, first and foremost we never were supposed to have a huge, strong Federal Government in the first place. The STATES were supposed to have all the power except for a few things they ALLOWED the Feds to do like national defense, and border security. I guess people forget this today after the Fed Gov brainwashing since the Civil War.

We are moving towards a Progressive/Democrat model anyway state by state as Metro areas which are all Democrat control entire states due to the metro large population. That is the work of pure Democracy, and mob rule which alienates much of the state. So even without the popular vote controlling Fed, Presidential elections we are still going down the path the Founding Fathers feared. It is only a matter of time.

 

[Doc1]

the system is fine but maybe you need to think, and all those who want MOB RULES to be our way of life, this country isn't about any 1 mindset or any 1 place. it's about all of us. in that type of a world you don't always get your way. i wish the left and nutbags who feel 250+ years of proven history is suddenly wrong today cause they're not getting their way at every turn.

250 years of history kind of proves nothing, dummy. You can get 20 historians in a room and get 20 different opinions of what history proves.

Here's the thing. When the will of the people has been ignored by the Electoral Anachronism, it's always, always, always been a disaster. Trump is a disaster. Bush was a disaster. Rutherford B. Hayes was a disaster.

The people said no. Every day, Trump proves they got it right, and the Electoral College got it wrong.

Well sure, in your "opinion".

 

[iceberg]

the system is fine but maybe you need to think, and all those who want MOB RULES to be our way of life, this country isn't about any 1 mindset or any 1 place. it's about all of us. in that type of a world you don't always get your way. i wish the left and nutbags who feel 250+ years of proven history is suddenly wrong today cause they're not getting their way at every turn.

250 years of history kind of proves nothing, dummy. You can get 20 historians in a room and get 20 different opinions of what history proves.

Here's the thing. When the will of the people has been ignored by the Electoral Anachronism, it's always, always, always been a disaster. Trump is a disaster. Bush was a disaster. Rutherford B. Hayes was a disaster.

The people said no. Every day, Trump proves they got it right, and the Electoral College got it wrong.

Well sure, in your "opinion".

well shit. you made me look to see who you were talking to. LOOK, it's joe replying to me.

i think i'll go grout some tile. not cared about the dudes opinion since before i met him.

 

[rightwinger]

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

A president should represent the people not the states

The Senate provides protection for smaller states

 

[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.

Here's the thing... I really, really, really do not give a **** what a bunch of slave raping assholes wanted in the 18th century.

The only reason we haven't gotten rid of the Electoral Anachronism was because most of the time, it reflected what the popular vote was.

The French have a much better system. Popular vote, if no one gets 50%, you have a runoff.

Dude....the runoff is another form of the EC.
It's a modifier.

Jo

 

[OldLady]

Why would I want Communists in New York City metro, and L.A. metro dictating to me?

Because they are the majority.

Why would I want the inbred, bible thumping assholes ******* their cousins in the Red States dictating to me?

If you believe that bovine excrement, you are one sick individual.

He's sick because the majority should get to choose the president?

Personally I'd love to see PR in the House, so that when it comes to Presidential elections more viable parties are present. Then a run off system like France where the best two go against each other in a second round.

In 2016, we voted for a proposition for Ranked Choice Voting in Maine. Legislators quickly shut down as much of it as it could and we can only vote for federal elections using it, even though it was passed because we usually have a pretty strong third party candidate and it caused us to elect that fruitcake LePage twice as governor without a majority. It finally got used in the primaries this year and went well. It was used for one of our senators and one of our Representatives to Congress, Bruce Poliquin (R).
King won by a majority and RCV did not kick in.
In Poliquin's race, however, there were four candidates and no one got the majority. All the ballots were couriered to a central counting location and the lengthy process began. Poliquin realized he might lose once the #2 votes were counted and has filed a lawsuit to stop RCV in Maine, saying it is unconstitutional. He is such a little Wormtail. If he were winning, you can bet your ass he wouldn't have said a word. He could have filed this suit anytime in the past two years and didn't.
Republicans are being disgusting.

 

[jon_berzerk]

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

agreed

 

[JWBooth]

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.

No, but Ca. would resemble Argentina

 

[frigidweirdo]

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're not exactly being truthful here.

Why would the popular vote not work "in a large nation"?

You're basically telling me that the larger a nation is, the less democracy there should be because.... oh, wait, you didn't say why.

Brazil uses a popular vote system with two rounds. They have a population of 210 million people. The system "works".

I don't understand what "works" means here.

The EC system "works" as in it puts a person into the presidency the same as a popular vote system does, the same as China's system does.

Are you saying it won't "work" as in the right wing will not get an overly easy ride therefore you don't like it, therefore it doesn't "work"? How would it not work?

What is it about democracy that you don't like?

That's the point this is not really what you would call a large homogeneous Nation like Japan or even China where one culture stretches across the width and breadth of the entire nation. Instead this is a very large and powerful conglomeration of many little Nations. It's an important aspect that adds both flexibility and durability to the union and must never be forgotten in a race to eliminate the states right's or boundaries.

Jo

So, if there's not a homogeneous nation, then there shouldn't be democracy?

I don't get it.

You think China is one homogeneous nation? Really? Is this the ignorance we're dealing with here?

You're saying that the US is lots of small nations. It was in 1776. It isn't today. Yes, some people might associate with one state. But many people are from all over, move from one state to another state etc.

Also, each State is not made up of one type of people. It's not like everyone in Georgia feels that pride for their state like someone from France might for their country.

But basically your argument is that because there are States, there shouldn't be democracy.

I still don't get it. You're not even trying to convince, you're just saying stuff.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Why would I want Communists in New York City metro, and L.A. metro dictating to me?

Because they are the majority.

Why would I want the inbred, bible thumping assholes ******* their cousins in the Red States dictating to me?

If you believe that bovine excrement, you are one sick individual.

He's sick because the majority should get to choose the president?

Personally I'd love to see PR in the House, so that when it comes to Presidential elections more viable parties are present. Then a run off system like France where the best two go against each other in a second round.

In 2016, we voted for a proposition for Ranked Choice Voting in Maine. Legislators quickly shut down as much of it as it could and we can only vote for federal elections using it, even though it was passed because we usually have a pretty strong third party candidate and it caused us to elect that fruitcake LePage twice as governor without a majority. It finally got used in the primaries this year and went well. It was used for one of our senators and one of our Representatives to Congress, Bruce Poliquin (R).
King won by a majority and RCV did not kick in.
In Poliquin's race, however, there were four candidates and no one got the majority. All the ballots were couriered to a central counting location and the lengthy process began. Poliquin realized he might lose once the #2 votes were counted and has filed a lawsuit to stop RCV in Maine, saying it is unconstitutional. He is such a little Wormtail. If he were winning, you can bet your ass he wouldn't have said a word. He could have filed this suit anytime in the past two years and didn't.
Republicans are being disgusting.

Okay, and what's your point here? That it's bad or good? I can't really tell.

 

[easyt65]

It seems to me we've had this discussion before.

We have.

As always, the Founding Fathers have proven to have been smarter than the average American.

The only reason Liberals, Democrats, and snowflakes are clamoring for the 'Popularity Contest' to be made new 'Law of the Land' is because their felon, incompetent candidate rant the worst campaign in US history - after rigging primaries / cheating in debates / breaking laws / colluding with and paying foreign agents and Russians for their help - lost the election yet won the 'Popularity Contest'.

Had she won the Electoral College and Trump had won the Popularity Contest the Left would have been screaming 'tough shit - the Electoral College is how the Presidency is won'!

 

[OldLady]

Why would I want Communists in New York City metro, and L.A. metro dictating to me?

Because they are the majority.

Why would I want the inbred, bible thumping assholes ******* their cousins in the Red States dictating to me?

If you believe that bovine excrement, you are one sick individual.

He's sick because the majority should get to choose the president?

Personally I'd love to see PR in the House, so that when it comes to Presidential elections more viable parties are present. Then a run off system like France where the best two go against each other in a second round.

In 2016, we voted for a proposition for Ranked Choice Voting in Maine. Legislators quickly shut down as much of it as it could and we can only vote for federal elections using it, even though it was passed because we usually have a pretty strong third party candidate and it caused us to elect that fruitcake LePage twice as governor without a majority. It finally got used in the primaries this year and went well. It was used for one of our senators and one of our Representatives to Congress, Bruce Poliquin (R).
King won by a majority and RCV did not kick in.
In Poliquin's race, however, there were four candidates and no one got the majority. All the ballots were couriered to a central counting location and the lengthy process began. Poliquin realized he might lose once the #2 votes were counted and has filed a lawsuit to stop RCV in Maine, saying it is unconstitutional. He is such a little Wormtail. If he were winning, you can bet your ass he wouldn't have said a word. He could have filed this suit anytime in the past two years and didn't.
Republicans are being disgusting.

Okay, and what's your point here? That it's bad or good? I can't really tell.

You can't? Ranked Choice Voting is the only solution for getting viable third party candidates on the ballot. Without it, people just consider a third party vote as a "spoiler," even if they really like them.
I think Ranked Choice Voting is very good and I think it is very bad that the Republicans have done everything they can to stop it. We need one word changed in the State Constitution to allow Ranked Choice Voting in state elections. Has that been done over the past two years? Nope. The politicians do not give a shit what the voters voted for.

 

[Auld Phart]

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're not exactly being truthful here.

Why would the popular vote not work "in a large nation"?

You're basically telling me that the larger a nation is, the less democracy there should be because.... oh, wait, you didn't say why.

Brazil uses a popular vote system with two rounds. They have a population of 210 million people. The system "works".

I don't understand what "works" means here.

The EC system "works" as in it puts a person into the presidency the same as a popular vote system does, the same as China's system does.

Are you saying it won't "work" as in the right wing will not get an overly easy ride therefore you don't like it, therefore it doesn't "work"? How would it not work?

What is it about democracy that you don't like?

That's the point this is not really what you would call a large homogeneous Nation like Japan or even China where one culture stretches across the width and breadth of the entire nation. Instead this is a very large and powerful conglomeration of many little Nations. It's an important aspect that adds both flexibility and durability to the union and must never be forgotten in a race to eliminate the states right's or boundaries.

Jo

So, if there's not a homogeneous nation, then there shouldn't be democracy?

I don't get it.

You think China is one homogeneous nation? Really? Is this the ignorance we're dealing with here?

You're saying that the US is lots of small nations. It was in 1776. It isn't today. Yes, some people might associate with one state. But many people are from all over, move from one state to another state etc.

Also, each State is not made up of one type of people. It's not like everyone in Georgia feels that pride for their state like someone from France might for their country.

But basically your argument is that because there are States, there shouldn't be democracy.

I still don't get it. You're not even trying to convince, you're just saying stuff.

But many people are from all over, move from one state to another state etc.

and there is no reason they can't take their political views with them.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Because they are the majority.

Why would I want the inbred, bible thumping assholes ******* their cousins in the Red States dictating to me?

If you believe that bovine excrement, you are one sick individual.

He's sick because the majority should get to choose the president?

Personally I'd love to see PR in the House, so that when it comes to Presidential elections more viable parties are present. Then a run off system like France where the best two go against each other in a second round.

In 2016, we voted for a proposition for Ranked Choice Voting in Maine. Legislators quickly shut down as much of it as it could and we can only vote for federal elections using it, even though it was passed because we usually have a pretty strong third party candidate and it caused us to elect that fruitcake LePage twice as governor without a majority. It finally got used in the primaries this year and went well. It was used for one of our senators and one of our Representatives to Congress, Bruce Poliquin (R).
King won by a majority and RCV did not kick in.
In Poliquin's race, however, there were four candidates and no one got the majority. All the ballots were couriered to a central counting location and the lengthy process began. Poliquin realized he might lose once the #2 votes were counted and has filed a lawsuit to stop RCV in Maine, saying it is unconstitutional. He is such a little Wormtail. If he were winning, you can bet your ass he wouldn't have said a word. He could have filed this suit anytime in the past two years and didn't.
Republicans are being disgusting.

Okay, and what's your point here? That it's bad or good? I can't really tell.

You can't? Ranked Choice Voting is the only solution for getting viable third party candidates on the ballot. Without it, people just consider a third party vote as a "spoiler," even if they really like them.
I think Ranked Choice Voting is very good and I think it is very bad that the Republicans have done everything they can to stop it. We need one word changed in the State Constitution to allow Ranked Choice Voting in state elections. Has that been done over the past two years? Nope. The politicians do not give a shit what the voters voted for.

Actually I believe you're wrong.

Germany has PR and they have six parties in government.
I could give a list of countries with PR and how many parties there are, and none will be two. Others will be many more.

France has a lower house elected via a two vote system. So, a person must get more than 50% of the votes in order to be elected to government. It's not as good as PR, but better than the US system.

But France has 9 political groups.

When it comes to electing the president there were FOUR people who received over 19% of the vote. That means people saw there were more choices. Then two of those choices went into a run off.

The US just has two parties and it's a massive con.

If you're going to change the electoral system, why not go for something even better than a system which still disenfranchises lots of people?

 

[frigidweirdo]

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're not exactly being truthful here.

Why would the popular vote not work "in a large nation"?

You're basically telling me that the larger a nation is, the less democracy there should be because.... oh, wait, you didn't say why.

Brazil uses a popular vote system with two rounds. They have a population of 210 million people. The system "works".

I don't understand what "works" means here.

The EC system "works" as in it puts a person into the presidency the same as a popular vote system does, the same as China's system does.

Are you saying it won't "work" as in the right wing will not get an overly easy ride therefore you don't like it, therefore it doesn't "work"? How would it not work?

What is it about democracy that you don't like?

That's the point this is not really what you would call a large homogeneous Nation like Japan or even China where one culture stretches across the width and breadth of the entire nation. Instead this is a very large and powerful conglomeration of many little Nations. It's an important aspect that adds both flexibility and durability to the union and must never be forgotten in a race to eliminate the states right's or boundaries.

Jo

So, if there's not a homogeneous nation, then there shouldn't be democracy?

I don't get it.

You think China is one homogeneous nation? Really? Is this the ignorance we're dealing with here?

You're saying that the US is lots of small nations. It was in 1776. It isn't today. Yes, some people might associate with one state. But many people are from all over, move from one state to another state etc.

Also, each State is not made up of one type of people. It's not like everyone in Georgia feels that pride for their state like someone from France might for their country.

But basically your argument is that because there are States, there shouldn't be democracy.

I still don't get it. You're not even trying to convince, you're just saying stuff.

But many people are from all over, move from one state to another state etc.

and there is no reason they can't take their political views with them.

But, imagine you're a Democrat from California, and you move to Wyoming. Oh, you're screwed. You won't have a Democrat to represent you in the house. In the Presidential election your vote doesn't count any more.

What bullshit is that?