This user has been banned.
I’m curious what one of the few sane pro-gun people I know (Tyr) thinks about this.
I’m curious too. You know people who are too mentally ill to handle their own fiances, they are just the ones we want having guns in their hands. There can be any trouble with that, can there?
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?
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.
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)
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.
mayhaps
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.
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,”
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.
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.
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?
Oh I get it now, it’s a running tally of the moves. Never mind.
exactly.
Question: Why is Warb (mostly) making multiple moves and Handman (mostly) making one move.
huh? I am not making multiple moves.
I’m okay with the electoral college system. It could use some tightening up, but overall it’s a decent system.
I find that a straight popular vote is scary.
What do you think of my suggestion?
*sigh*
Yes, I know. They are trying to go state to state and get state to pass a law awarding its electoral votes to the winner of the national popular. Such laws are set up only go into effect once the number of the electoral votes of the states on board equals a majority of the total. It might work, but I think it will be an uphill battle.
Your solution makes sense but is ultimately just an unnecessary substitute for the real deal: the popular vote.
Unfortunately, I think idea of a popular vote will face too much opposition. Hence my compromise.
- Bringing up the election that he lost.
As much as I wish he had lost, he didn’t.
Lost is a point of view that is factually accurate if not technically. The American people didn’t vote for him, our broken and unfair system did.
broken is also a point of view. Some actually like our electoral college system. They do have point. With our current system it is possible for the more populated areas of the country to control the entire country. I am not saying it shouldn’t be changed, but the other side does have a point.
That’s not true. You can’t win an election with just the cities. Democrats have lost the popular vote before.
I wasn’t talking about just the cities.
Either way, the population is the population. People shouldn’t have less of a voice because they live near other people. Gubernatorial races have no problem using the popular vote. Other democratic countries have no problem using the popular vote.
Actually there are problems. In my state for example. North Jersey is more populated than South Jersey. The result: North Jersey controls the state. I don’t know when the last time we’ve had a Governor from the Southern half of the state. Sometimes it feels like South Jersey is NJ’s ugly stepchild.
Republicans have an unfair advantage because they live in more sparsely populated areas. This already helps them in the Senate, and with gerrymandering and urban clustering they have taken the House.
I agree, gerrmandering is a problem that needs to be fixed. The Senate is bit more tricky. Each state gets 2 Senators, that is the way the founders decided it should. Some wanted a legislature that done by proportion of the population. Others thought each state should get the same number of representatives. The compromise: the House which is done by proportion of the population of each state and the Senate with each state having 2 representatives.
Democrats are just fucked, regardless of whether the majority of the country sides with them or not. That isn’t democracy. That’s a broken system. We’re living where the opposite of what you said is true - that the less populated areas control the country. Where you live shouldn’t matter. What should is your vote.
If that were true, Obama would never have been President. The idea behind the electoral is that all parts of the country get a say in government. I agree, it could use some fixing. That is why I’d like to change it up.
- Bringing up the election that he lost.
As much as I wish he had lost, he didn’t.
Lost is a point of view that is factually accurate if not technically. The American people didn’t vote for him, our broken and unfair system did.
broken is also a point of view. Some actually like our electoral college system. They do have point. With our current system it is possible for the more populated areas of the country to control the entire country. I am not saying it shouldn’t be changed, but the other side does have a point.
- Bringing up the election that he lost.
As much as I wish he had lost, he didn’t.
Well, I thank you for the info will spare you further questions for tonight. GET BACK TO THE HOMEWORK!!