Reply With Quote
Maybe if you want to wish for something then wish for all the states to go to proportional representation in the choosing of electors.
No way, CC. It took us this freakin' long to figure out how to utilize the EC.
Maybe if you want to wish for something then wish for all the states to go to proportional representation in the choosing of electors.
note to the american people prior to 1912
Why not do away with current system of selecting senators and put it up to a vote of the people? It's really pretty simple. Article 1, section 3, clause 1 of the US Cons ution. You can wish all you want, but your are stuck with your state legislature picking your senators for you.
haven't really addressed this at all
Last edited by spurraider21; 02-09-2020 at 07:27 PM.
Doesnt matter what I think. You sound like someone that got way too many "participation" trophies. In the real world life is not fair.
The Democrat has won the popular vote in 6 out of the last 7 presidential elections.
Last edited by Th'Pusher; 02-09-2020 at 07:34 PM.
but feasibility of implementing it notwithstanding, do you think the EC which allows for minority rule (based on geography of voters) is a more fair system than a popular vote?
Right. We still have slavery and women can't vote.
As usual Chump starts building ridiculous strawmen. The Electoral College was still the law of the land when slavery was abolished and women got the vote.Right. We still have slavery and women can't vote.
How is showing the Cons ution can be and has been changed a straw man?
women still couldn't vote when slavery was abolished. was women's complaining about the right to vote as useless as complaining about gravity... until it wasn't?
a good starting point would be to answer this question: feasibility of implementing it notwithstanding, do you think the EC which allows for minority rule (based on geography of voters) is a more fair system than a popular vote?
When a state like California has a total vote count and the dems have millions more than the GOP, no one is demanding a recount. However if the grand total of all states was close enough, recounts in every state would matter. You're once again taking the system we have now and trying to force fit the popular vote mechanics into it. You'd have to do a lot more than you seem to imply. You can't just take the popular vote count from the current EC system and pretend that's the deciding factor. It would not work that way. I do notice several of you trying that though.
Why would states be in charge of counting votes if the state has no representation in the election? Shouldn't it be federal? Are the states in charge of collecting and ensuring federal income taxes from citizens? How about other federal programs, are they also run by the states?
It depends on the cir stances. If you think there should only be 2 people in the general election, then sure, but what if there are 3 or 4 under your new system? Since no one has to get a specific number of electoral votes to win now, 4 people could be on the ballot and so the winner could have only 30% of the vote, or less. Is that more fair than the winner having 49% of the vote?
He may or may not be done but this isn't going to be the reason why.
he’s so done
If people cared about this kind of behavior, do you think we'd have this dumbass president right now? Thought so
what would be the basis of a recount? if you have particular reason to believe there's an issue with the vote. you have the same vote gathering measures as we already have. if there are issues in a particular state, have them recount it. like it's already done.
what do you mean? i'm not suggesting we go back and retroactively change previous results. why not have the same method of gathering the popular vote state by state and just tally the totals? what exactly are you saying needs to change?You're once again taking the system we have now and trying to force fit the popular vote mechanics into it. You'd have to do a lot more than you seem to imply. You can't just take the popular vote count from the current EC system and pretend that's the deciding factor. It would not work that way. I do notice several of you trying that though.
no need to go down the slippery slope. it's probably more feasible to have states collect their own data. and by having 50 separate pools of votes, it would make it easier to recount areas that have discrepancies, rather than an all-or-nothing "we have to recount all 150 million votes" situation any time there is a reporting issue somewhere.Why would states be in charge of counting votes if the state has no representation in the election? Shouldn't it be federal? Are the states in charge of collecting and ensuring federal income taxes from citizens? How about other federal programs, are they also run by the states?
states still hold elections at the same time for their representatives, senators, ballot measures, etc. why would you then have a completely separate apparatus for the presidential vote? you're suggesting that the situation needs to be unnecessarily complicated. it doesnt. keep the same vote-gathering system we have in place. you just ignore the midde-man math step of the EC.
Total count is close, even if 4 ways. What's the acceptable margin of error on 130 million votes?
If your results are close, a recount could be called for, and you couldn't just cherry pick the state. It would have to be nationwide, because the numbers gained or lost in one state due to recount could be reversed in another.
Because you're not having a state by state vote. You're having a national election and taking a total vote count. It should be run by the federal government, and the states should have nothing to do with it if the EC isn't going to be involved.what do you mean? i'm not suggesting we go back and retroactively change previous results. why not have the same method of gathering the popular vote state by state and just tally the totals? what exactly are you saying needs to change?
More feasible? You'd have to ask the states if they would rather save the money they spend on canvassing boards for that election and only spend on their state and local elections. The feds would need to run it to ensure consistency, and to have one governing election body controlling the methods.no need to go down the slippery slope. it's probably more feasible to have states collect their own data. and by having 50 separate pools of votes, it would make it easier to recount areas that have discrepancies, rather than an all-or-nothing "we have to recount all 150 million votes" situation any time there is a reporting issue somewhere.
It's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.
why does the number of candidates matter?
what happens if there are 3 or 4 on the ballot under the current EC? right now, as it stands, if nobody gets the majority of electoral votes (270), a winner isn't declared. the house of representatives then votes for president. you can still keep that "tiebreak" method in place even if we switch from requiring a majority of the EC votes to a majority of the popular vote.
or you can have ranked choice voting which would be another solution
this is why you can still conduct recounts on a state by state basis the same way we do now. if theres reason to believe that a specific state or states had discrepancies in their reporting or their popular vote was within x%, you recount only those states.
there's no need for an all-or-nothing national vote recount.
i disagree. i think it makes more sense for the states to gather their own votes the same way they already do for representatives, senators, etc. you already have all the people gathering on election day to vote for all these things. deciding to complicating by adding a separate election day, or separate polling locations specifically for the presidential vote would be very stupid. it also prevents the need for all-or-nothing nationwide recounts as i mentioned above. it makes perfect sense to keep the current vote-gathering system in placeBecause you're not having a state by state vote. You're having a national election and taking a total vote count. It should be run by the federal government, and the states should have nothing to do with it if the EC isn't going to be involved.
right now, states already gather votes for local, state, and national elections. why is it going to suddenly become problematic for states continuing to do exactly the same thing they already do now? you're unnecessarily complicating itMore feasible? You'd have to ask the states if they would rather save the money they spend on canvassing boards for that election and only spend on their state and local elections. The feds would need to run it to ensure consistency, and to have one governing election body controlling the methods.It's not as cut and dry as you make it out to be.
right now, a popular vote for the president is already being gathered every single election. pretending that you have to complete uproot the method in which the popular vote is gathered, quite frankly, makes no sense.
the only people that have to change how they go about things are presidential candidates who no longer will be able to ignore large portions of the population and disproportionally campaign in only a handful of states... as if the people of those states are any more important than any other american anywhere
I don’t think I’ve ever seen anything more deserve of an “OK boomer” response than this post
A solution to what? What's the current issue?
It's not being scrutinized nationally. When is the last time any of the stronghold states had recounts? Just because one side wins handily every time in these states doesn't mean the count is accurate. No one calls for a recount when a million votes separates the candidates, but errors can stack x 50 states.
You keep making these statements based on basically nothing other than guesswork but you say them as if they are researched facts.
You obviously haven't given much thought to it, or you're following some liberal hack website.
cool. so if the general election ends up being very close, you should have a good faith basis to decide where a recount is needed. if some states had irregularities with reporting, thats might indicate a need to look there. if there's a compelling case for a nationwide recount, so be it. 2000 is the only time in the last 40 years that the popular vote was less than ~3 million apart.
the concern for a potential recount is a lazy argument against a popular vote, because the same concern would be used to argue against any instance that calls for a vote of the people, whether its national or otherwise. a national recount would be huge in scope, but on the off chance that one is needed, i think the office of the presidency is significant enough to warrant it
what facts do i claim to have researched? its true that a popular vote is already recorded every election. you're the one who is deciding that we would need a completely new apparatus to end up with the same popular vote figures that we already record every election. you're the one who is bringing up the concern of "what if there are more people on the ballot" even though that isn't an issue which would be unique to a popular vote, and is equally applicable to the current EC system we have. you're just making up as you go along. not so long ago you for some reason claimed that we'd have to scrap our system of having states in order to accommodate a popular voteYou keep making these statements based on basically nothing other than guesswork but you say them as if they are researched facts.
im not following any website, this is all my opinion. nice narrative though. and LOL EDITSYou obviously haven't given much thought to it, or you're following some liberal hack website.
For one, it's never going to happen because the left and right cannot agree to a ing thing, and it requires some consensus in Washington to change the cons ution. 2nd, fairness is just a lovely dressing the left wraps this in, because if it was about majority rules, then the minorities in the country would have no voice. The non-urban areas of the US, and states not named California and New York also have an interest in how the country is run, but the left only seems to care about majority rules when they have the majority. At the same time, they want their minority opinions to be dragged to the forefront of social discussion.
what is this post referring to?
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions