Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

The strange greatness of Donald Trump

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Anybody who agrees to that pact is an idiot because it would effectively consolidate power in only the most populous states, which is exactly the opposite of what the Founding Fathers intended.
    Actually - because the electoral vote is a "winner take all" model in most states, that reality already exists. Further, the FF's POV is obsolete given the shift from the originally envisioned state-based emphasis with a weaker federal government to deal with common issues. The Civil War changed all of that.

    Frankly, a better alternative would be a compact that would have all states allocating their electoral votes as the chambers are structured: 2 electoral votes allocated based on the state vote, and one allocated based on the votes within each district within the state. But until gerrymandering is brought under control, that approach is also problematic. Until those two things happen (gerrymandering is made illegal, and electorals get allocated by state/district), at least the popular vote creates a "one person - one vote" scenario. We all become equal.

    I am 100% behind the second-best alternative, since the best is highly unlikely to ever happen.
    Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-06-2019, 07:31 PM.
    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

    Comment


    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      Actually - because the electoral vote is a "winner take all" model in most states, that reality already exists.
      No it doesn't, because it's based only on votes in that state. The system being proposed by the idiotic "popular vote" pact could, in the right scenario, override the will of the people in an individual state.

      Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
      ...at least the popular vote creates a "one person - one vote" scenario. We all become equal.
      Unless you happened to live in a state where your vote was overturned by the pact. That's the kind of "equality" I could do without.
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        No it doesn't, because it's based only on votes in that state. The system being proposed by the idiotic "popular vote" pact could, in the right scenario, override the will of the people in an individual state.
        Exactly. Right now, my vote or the vote of someone living in Wyoming has over 50% more weight than the vote of a person in California or New York or Texas towards selecting a president. One person - one vote.

        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        Unless you happened to live in a state where your vote was overturned by the pact. That's the kind of "equality" I could do without.
        My vote is "overturned" now every time the majority wants X and the electoral system puts Y in instead. That we need to do something to reskew things so that somehow the presidential election is this bizarre blend of individual votes and "state" votes is, IMO, ridiculous. We have state-level representation in Congress in the two-house structure. There is no justification for creating an artificial system for inflating the vote of one person over the vote of another for no other reason than they live in separate states.

        I realize that reverses my previous post. After some thought, I think the electoral system should be scrapped altogether. One person - one vote. To avoid the need for a constitutional amendment, I heartily endorse the Interstate Electoral Vote Compact. And I'm proud that my small state, which actually benefits from the current system and gives my vote more power, has joined the compact.
        Last edited by carpedm9587; 06-07-2019, 07:47 AM.
        The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

        I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

        Comment


        • In other words, you want a system where even if the majority of the people in the majority of states prefer one candidate, their vote should be overruled if a single state with a disproportionately large population prefers a different candidate. This does not give your vote more power, it gives it LESS. And seeing how you reside in a small state with a tiny sliver of electoral college votes, you can say goodbye to a presidential candidate ever stepping foot in your state again, or indeed even caring about policies that might benefit rural populations. In fact, whether or not you vote won't even matter since the president would be chosen exclusively by only the most densely populated states regardless of how you cast your ballot. One person, one vote? In your case, it would be one person, NO vote!
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            In other words, you want a system where even if the majority of the people in the majority of states prefer one candidate, their vote should be overruled if a single state with a disproportionately large population prefers a different candidate.
            Yes - I am noting that each person in the U.S. should have an equal vote for the office of president of the United States, and there is no reason to give one person's vote more weight than another's.

            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            This does not give your vote more power, it gives it LESS.
            No.

            Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            And seeing how you reside in a small state with a tiny sliver of electoral college votes, you can say goodbye to a presidential candidate ever stepping foot in your state again, or indeed even caring about policies that might benefit rural populations. In fact, whether or not you vote won't even matter since the president would be chosen exclusively by only the most densely populated states regardless of how you cast your ballot. One person, one vote? In your case, it would be one person, NO vote!
            Horse hockey. What will happen is what is happening now: candidates will go where the people are and where the optics are good. Currently, candidates spend almost all of their time in so-called "swing states" and states with high optics (i.e., early voters in the primaries). They largely ignore any state that has a very small electoral representation (unless they meet one or both of the previous criteria) or states what have a pretty well known outcome (in the general election). After the primaries, the Democratic candidate doesn't spend a great deal of time in California and the Republican doesn't spend a great deal of time in Alabama. And candidates strongly prefer urban areas to rural areas because that's where the people are.

            One person - one vote. Across the country - everyone the same. There is no way you can make a case that election by popular vote in any way disenfranchises any individual. All votes become equal. The candidate with the most votes wins. Simple.
            The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

            I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

            Comment


            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
              You might take heart in the Electoral College Vote Interstate Compact. You see, there is a way to actually keep the electoral college AND give the office to the winner of the popular vote. Currently, 14 states and D.C., representing 189 electoral votes, have signed a compact to give their electoral votes to the candidate winning the national popular vote. The compact takes effect when the total number of states signing the compact have a total of 270 or more electoral votes. There are states representing 99 more electoral votes with legislation pending. 81 more electoral votes are needed to trigger the compact, so the possibility has become more real recently.

              As best I can tell, this requires no Constitutional amendment since the constitution gives the states the power to determine how their electoral votes are allocated. There are already differences (e.g., winner take all vs. 2 statewide and one for each district), so this is simply another difference.

              If your state is on the list of states with pending legislation, and you find the electoral college as antiquated as I do, you should let your state legislators and the governor know that you are behind this initiative.

              Michel
              I am betting SCOTUS will get involved. They would be basically ignoring what their citizens want. If say all of their citizens voted Trump, but the popular vote said Biden, then that state would ignore their citizens and give their vote to Biden. Constitutionally I guess they can do that. But ethically they are wrong. Not to mention if they did that, they would be guaranteeing a statewide rebellion and would be kicked out of office.

              Any state that signs that pact is being a possible traitor to their own citizens and giving up their own autonomy to California and New York and the other populous states.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                I am betting SCOTUS will get involved. They would be basically ignoring what their citizens want.
                If the citizens want something else, all they need to do is vote in a legislature that will reverse their membership in the compact. A legislature is empowered to act on behalf of the people.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                If say all of their citizens voted Trump, but the popular vote said Biden, then that state would ignore their citizens and give their vote to Biden.
                That argument only makes sense if you give a fig about state boundaries for the purposes of general elections. I don't.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Constitutionally I guess they can do that. But ethically they are wrong.
                I would love to see the argument that makes this an ethical issue.

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Not to mention if they did that, they would be guaranteeing a statewide rebellion and would be kicked out of office.
                A prediction for which you have no basis. But if it happens, then that's how it's supposed to work...

                Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                Any state that signs that pact is being a possible traitor to their own citizens and giving up their own autonomy to California and New York and the other populous states.
                Horse hockey. Any state that signs that pact is recognizing that we ought to be a country in which one person gets one vote and they all count equally. Right now, my vote has 50%+ more power than the vote of anyone in California or New York or Texas. There should not be such a disparity for a federal position. We have state-level representation in Congress.
                The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                Comment


                • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                  Horse hockey. What will happen is what is happening now: candidates will go where the people are and where the optics are good.
                  Exactly. A popular vote for president would mean that candidates would focus exclusively on the interests of large urban populations while never stepping foot in what even now are dismissively referred to as "flyover states". Since you live in a lightly populated states, pesidential candidates could and would completely ignore you and your interests and still walk away with a comfortable victory.

                  Think about it: you've been getting giddy lately because you think Trump is losing support of the farmers, and you think it could cost him the presidency. In a popular vote system, the farmers could be safely ignored as presidents focus solely on the interests of urban centers like Los Angeles and New York City. Is that really what you want?
                  Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                  But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                  Than a fool in the eyes of God


                  From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Mountain Man
                    Exactly. A popular vote for president would mean that candidates would focus exclusively on the interests of large urban populations while never stepping foot in what even now are dismissively referred to as "flyover states". Presidential candidates could and would completely ignore you and your interests and still walk away with a comfortable victory. Is that really what you want?
                    MM - Candidates would do what they do now: focus their attention on places/areas that are strategically important to their interests. They largely don't visit "flyover" states now. Candidates seldom go to Alaska, Wyoming, Hawaii, Vermont, Montana, Idaho, Rhode Island, or Delaware (to name a few) in the general election. They may visit them in the primaries, but even THAT is rare because they primarily need the delegates from the populous states. They go where the people are: urban centers in New York, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Georgia, etc.

                    All of this is a canard, IMO. One person - one vote. Nothing could be simpler or more balanced. Which means attention would go to the issues that the majority are concerned with.
                    The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                    I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                      If the citizens want something else, all they need to do is vote in a legislature that will reverse their membership in the compact. A legislature is empowered to act on behalf of the people.
                      they might after they lose their vote. What if by some miracle Trump wins the popular vote? Do you think the liberals who voted this membership will be happy? Hell no.



                      That argument only makes sense if you give a fig about state boundaries for the purposes of general elections. I don't.
                      This is the United STATES of America, Carp. If you dissolve the states powers, you might as well dissolve congress too. Why do we need representatives to vote for us?



                      Horse hockey. Any state that signs that pact is recognizing that we ought to be a country in which one person gets one vote and they all count equally. Right now, my vote has 50%+ more power than the vote of anyone in California or New York or Texas. There should not be such a disparity for a federal position. We have state-level representation in Congress.
                      Why do we need state level representation in congress? We can just do a popular vote for everything, right? We don't need no stinking states or borders. Just make it one single country without states.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        We don't need no stinking states or borders. Just make it one single country without states.
                        That's a FANTASTIC idea! Then maybe Houston can have blocks and blocks of skid row downtown like Los Angeles!!!!
                        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          they might after they lose their vote. What if by some miracle Trump wins the popular vote? Do you think the liberals who voted this membership will be happy? Hell no.
                          No one is "losing a vote." You are collecting up the votes of people within a specific geographical region, and claiming that this collective vote somehow counts more than the votes of the individuals. It's a canard. One person - one vote - nationwide - for a national office. One person - one-vote statewide for a state office. Simple.

                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          This is the United STATES of America, Carp. If you dissolve the states powers, you might as well dissolve congress too. Why do we need representatives to vote for us?
                          I have not suggested dissolving state powers. I have noted that we already have state-level representation in Congress. The president is a national office. Just as we have one person one vote for each congressman, and one person one vote for each senator, we should have one person one vote for the president. There is no excuse for my vote having 50% more power than someone else's for any particular office.

                          Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                          Why do we need state level representation in congress? We can just do a popular vote for everything, right? We don't need no stinking states or borders. Just make it one single country without states.
                          Because Congress is a collection of individuals representing particular districts/states. This is how we balance:

                          1 person 1 vote for a congressman (by congressional district)
                          1 person 1 vote for a Senator (by state)
                          1 person 1 vote for President (by nation)

                          See. Simple. Everyone has the same voting power at each level, and all levels are represented in the federal government.
                          The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy...returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that. Martin Luther King

                          I would unite with anybody to do right and with nobody to do wrong. Frederick Douglas

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                            That's a FANTASTIC idea! Then maybe Houston can have blocks and blocks of skid row downtown like Los Angeles!!!!
                            a country with total mob rule. What a paradise that would be. We could all just vote on facebook.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                              No one is "losing a vote." You are collecting up the votes of people within a specific geographical region, and claiming that this collective vote somehow counts more than the votes of the individuals. It's a canard. One person - one vote - nationwide - for a national office. One person - one-vote statewide for a state office. Simple.



                              I have not suggested dissolving state powers. I have noted that we already have state-level representation in Congress. The president is a national office. Just as we have one person one vote for each congressman, and one person one vote for each senator, we should have one person one vote for the president. There is no excuse for my vote having 50% more power than someone else's for any particular office.



                              Because Congress is a collection of individuals representing particular districts/states. This is how we balance:

                              1 person 1 vote for a congressman (by congressional district)
                              1 person 1 vote for a Senator (by state)
                              1 person 1 vote for President (by nation)

                              See. Simple. Everyone has the same voting power at each level, and all levels are represented in the federal government.
                              So you like having representative government in congress but not in electing the president? Why should we even bother with representative congress? If a state just gives away it's power to some "pact" then why not go all the way? We don't need no stinking states. We don't need a congress to represent those states that we don't need. We could do everything with a popular vote.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by carpedm9587 View Post
                                One person - one vote. Nothing could be simpler or more balanced.
                                It wouldn't be balanced at all. The president would be chosen exclusively based on the interests of urban populations. Yes, there are certain "swing states" in the current system that seem get a lot of focus, but those states still represent a diverse range of social and political interests, which is the entire point behind the electoral college system.

                                You aren't doing much to change my belief that those who want to abolish the electoral college really don't understand it.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, 03-27-2024, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                179 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                413 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                386 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X