DominicCobb said:

If the people want a cat, they’ll elect a cat.

I sure wish that had happened. We’d be better off by far.

My six-year-old just described what she believes the President’s job is.

Make decisions
Make new friends
Be in parades

Not far off.

She’s basing this on the current so-called President. She doesn’t remember the last actual President very well.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory/china-awards-trump-valuable-trademark-45504953

The registration this week came as a surprise win for Trump after a decade of trying — and failing — to wrest the rights to his name back from a man named Dong Wei. The abrupt turn in Trump’s bureaucratic fortunes once he declared his candidacy has raised questions about the extent to which his political status may be helping his family business.

after a decade of trying — and failing

But sure, no conflicts of interest at all!

http://www.mediaite.com/online/report-intel-officials-are-withholding-sensitive-information-from-trump/

U.S. intelligence officials have withheld sensitive intelligence from President Donald Trump because they are concerned it could be leaked or compromised, according to current and former officials familiar with the matter…

In some of these cases of withheld information, officials have decided not to show Mr. Trump the sources and methods that the intelligence agencies use to collect information, the current and former officials said. Those sources and methods could include, for instance, the means that an agency uses to spy on a foreign government.

Great.

TV’s Frink said:

Oh my god, I just heard Trump’s comments on two state vs. one state and he sounds like a fucking moron. Does he know anything about the job he was hired to do?

What did he say?

TV’s Frink said:

My six-year-old just described what she believes the President’s job is.

Make decisions

Well he has made decisions, but they’ve all be bad decisions, so far.

Make new friends

I am sure he could make new friends if he wanted to pay them enough.

Be in parades

At the rate things are going if he decides to be in parades, he is liable to get booed have food thrown at him and perhaps protested try to block the and interrupt the parade.

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Oh my god, I just heard Trump’s comments on two state vs. one state and he sounds like a fucking moron. Does he know anything about the job he was hired to do?

What did he say?

Google it.

TV’s Frink said:

She’s basing this on the current so-called President. She doesn’t remember the last actual President very well.

Is her memory really that bad? Its only been a few weeks since Obama.

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

She’s basing this on the current so-called President. She doesn’t remember the last actual President very well.

Is her memory really that bad? Its only been a few weeks since Obama.

She’s six. She doesn’t spend all day watching CNN.

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Oh my god, I just heard Trump’s comments on two state vs. one state and he sounds like a fucking moron. Does he know anything about the job he was hired to do?

What did he say?

Google it.

Are you referring to this? “I’m looking at two-state and one-state and I like the one that both parties like. I’m very happy with the one that both parties like,”

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

She’s basing this on the current so-called President. She doesn’t remember the last actual President very well.

Is her memory really that bad? Its only been a few weeks since Obama.

She’s six. She doesn’t spend all day watching CNN.

She doesn’t have to watch CNN all day to remember a little something prior to 01/20/2017.

My first memories of actual political events didn’t take hold until I was seven (also an election year); you’re expecting too much.

mayhaps

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

Warbler said:

TV’s Frink said:

She’s basing this on the current so-called President. She doesn’t remember the last actual President very well.

Is her memory really that bad? Its only been a few weeks since Obama.

She’s six. She doesn’t spend all day watching CNN.

She doesn’t have to watch CNN all day to remember a little something prior to 01/20/2017.

Of course she remembers a little, just not very much because she doesn’t pay much attention to politics. Because, you know, she’s six.

Tyrphanax said:

I also reject NPV as subversive of the constitution verging on fraud.

Actually, it doesn’t. The Constitution allows each state to decide for itself how it will award it’s own electoral votes. This includes awarding them to the winner of the state popular vote, a vote by the state legislature, awarding them by popular vote in each Congressional district within the state(and two votes to winner of the state popular vote), or awarding the electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. States rights.

Tyrphanax said:

Warbler said:

Tyrphanax said:

I also reject NPV as subversive of the constitution verging on fraud.

Actually, it doesn’t. The Constitution allows each state to decide for itself how it will award it’s own electoral votes. This includes awarding them to the winner of the state popular vote, a vote by the state legislature, awarding them by popular vote in each Congressional district within the state(and two votes to winner of the state popular vote), or awarding the electoral votes to the winner of the national popular vote. States rights.

I realize that it’s the right of the state, but firstly, the NPV agreement isn’t based on the state’s popular vote, it’s based on the nationwide popular vote.

Yes, I know it is not based on the state’s popular. It is based on a state giving its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular. This is something is each state has a right to decide to do.

Secondly, does it not mess with the system to have some states on this system and others not? Shouldn’t they just try to change the constitution instead of subverting it?

1. As as I said, the way it is set up in each is that it doesn’t going into affect until enough states have signed on. By that, I mean enough states to control a majority of the electoral college. In other words in only goes into effect when the total number of electoral of the states signing on, add up 370 or more.

2. I suspect they believe this path is easier than trying to get a Constitutional amendment. Also presumable they believe what they are doing is Constitutional and therefor not subverting it.

What if a super red state like Texas signs the NPV agreement and is then forced to give its electoral votes to the Democratic candidate just because they won the nationwide popular vote? How does that make sense?

Texas would have to realize that such a thing could happen, when they sign on. A state should only sign on if it believes that the winner of the national popular vote should be President. If Texas does believe and agree to that, then it should therefor have no problem with its electoral votes going to the winner of the national popular. It isn’t about who Texas prefers, but how Texas thinks a President should be elected. (btw, I doubt super red states would sign on. They tend to prefer the electoral college to a national popular vote)

Tyrphanax said:

DominicCobb said:

If a majority isn’t a majority then what is it?

What if, in your scenario, millions lived in that one city and the boonies, all put together, amounted to a dozen, total. What gives those people more of a voice than a dozen in the city? Just because people live in a city, doesn’t mean they all think alike or want the same things.

If the people want a cat, they’ll elect a cat. Whether there’s an electoral college system in place wouldn’t change that. There’s nothing about cats that’s going to make everybody in the cities vote for it and no one in the boonies.

Yes there are more liberals in the cities, but if liberal candidates started pandering to only those in the cities they would lose a lot of other votes fast. As is, we have conservative candidates who don’t consider those in cities at all because they don’t have to (well besides corporate fat cats). Our current system gears elections to a small amount of states, not the whole country. Why should people in the rust belt and Florida have control over the country?

Yeah, but how does a straight popular vote not just do the same thing? Why focus on some podunk state in the Midwest when you can just win the most populous states (which would be the ones with the largest liberal metros) and take the election? Again, the idea behind the electoral college was to make candidates focus on the whole country and not just the most populous states, and to make voter fraud more difficult.

I just worry about a majority dictating terms to a minority is all. It’s the old “two wolves and a sheep deciding what’s for dinner” adage. We have checks and balances all over government and going with a straight popular vote does away with that entirely.

I’m not saying the electoral college is a perfect system at all, and there are definitely ways to modernize it and bring it up to code, it’s just that I feel that it was put in place for a reason and that I believe it more or less serves that purpose. I also reject NPV as subversive of the constitution verging on fraud.

States aren’t a hive mind though. There’s no such thing as focusing on the most populace states alone. There are voters in New York State who vote a lot closer to those in North Dakota than NYC.

The EC was put in place because of the North/South dichotomy where there were clear divisions between the wants and needs of Northern and Southern states. We don’t live in a country anymore where different states have wildly different make ups and concerns. Two thirds of the country isn’t going to eat the other third, that’s just not going to happen. But when the EC was put in place, the North fucking the South over was a legitimate concern (and it still happened anyway, if you ask the South why they seceded). What happens with policy now affects every state, and every voter.

I just don’t see how this boogeyman hypothetical of a popularly elected president a thing.

There’s already state governments and Congress in place to ensure the individual states get what they need. But at the end of the day we’re supposed to be a democratic nation so everyone should get a say. As is my vote means diddly fucking squat.

DominicCobb said:

We don’t live in a country anymore where different states have wildly different make ups and concerns.

Texas, California, and Florida would like a word.

Handman said:

DominicCobb said:

We don’t live in a country anymore where different states have wildly different make ups and concerns.

Texas, California, and Florida would like a word.

That’s simultaneously not what I meant and exactly what I meant, if you know what I mean.

I don’t think we’re one continuous country. I think living in different states has a great deal to do with that, and it’s only getting worse as people move to ideologically similar areas. So your assertion doesn’t really make sense to me.

A liberal in Texas is more likely to move to Austin than Boston.