Reply With Quote
(They) abolished (due process) to facilitate their needs & wants.
Popular vote is fine within the state. This is what we do. We are run first by state governments, and the states report to the federal government. Do you want to abolish state governments and have one country under the federal government? This is really the only way total popular vote makes any sense.
States elect the POTUS through the EC. Get rid of the United States and you can get rid of the EC.
(They) abolished (due process) to facilitate their needs & wants.
How?
slavery was cons utional for all that time. People whined about that. It got changed. I thought whining about the cons ution was as useless at whining about gravity.
And i think you meant thirteenth
Also, what if it's not a 2 party election, like there are 4 people and no one gets more than 30% of the vote? So someone gets elected with 30% of the popular vote and somehow that's more democratic than someone getting 49% of the popular vote?
I feel like the dems look at a system historically decided by the EC and then magically apply popular vote as if the election and turnout wouldn't be totally different under that totally different system - as if the dems could just remove the results of the EC and cherry pick the popular vote totals in those cases.
no. That’s a ridiculous comment.
How about you keep state governments in place, preserve the current balance between state and federal autonomy, and have the presidential election decided by popular vote.
Members of the house are elected via popular vote by the people they represent (their district). Same for members of the senate (their state). It’s apparently radical to do the same for the president who represents the nation
the EC doesn’t have a built in solution for that either
How would turnout be impacted?I feel like the dems look at a system historically decided by the EC and then magically apply popular vote as if the election and turnout wouldn't be totally different under that totally different system - as if the dems could just remove the results of the EC and cherry pick the popular vote totals in those cases.
It comes down to an objectively unfair system that has benefitted your team in recent years, so you bend over backwards doing all kinds of mental gymnastics to justify it
My personal preference would be against Medicare for all since I don’t think it’s run very well now, already bankrupt just covering senior citizens, and doesn’t cover everything compared to private insurances. It’s just very inefficient overall and cares more about costs than actually helping patients. That’s just from my experience. Covering everyone would make it more comparable to Medicaid instead of actual Medicare now. I’m in favor of a healthy balance between private and government insurance. I think everyone should have coverage but not by Medicare. I would prefer paying for private insurance than having Medicaid or Medicare.
Not sure if this is what you’re saying but I think you’re right in the sense that if things were decided by pure popular vote then Trump would spend a lot more time campaigning in California because it’s where the most popular votes could be had and even though he’d still lose the popular vote in CA it wouldn’t be by such a wide margin. Still think Shillary stills wins the popular vote but not by as wide of a margin. No way to know though.
My counter argument to that would be great and we’d have a much different looking Republican Party if it didn’t get to ignore California (same thing with the Democratic Party in Texas). The EC has created a dynamic where each party completely ignores huge demographics / huge population centers and it’s led to a never ending partisan pissing match.
No meant the 14th. The civil rights act of 1964. States agreeing without a freaking war that we needed to put discrimination behind us.
What? without a fight?
the 14th amendment was one of the civil war amendments and the civil rights act was federal and imposed on the Jim Crow states that didn’t want to change
My mistake. Should have looked it up instead of going by memory. Still, didn't take a civil war to pass it.
How about you keep state governments in place, preserve the current balance between state and federal autonomy, and have the presidential election decided by popular vote.
Members of the house are elected via popular vote by the people they represent (their district). Same for members of the senate (their state). It’s apparently radical to do the same for the president who represents the nation
Actually it took 188 years including a civil war to get to that point.
But the states are supposed to be taking those people into account when they send representatives to Washington.
Not only would candidates campaign differently, but people in polarized states wouldn't avoid voting because their vote doesn't change the outcome, so you'd not be able to go into a retrospective analysis mode where you say Gore would have won, Hillary would have won, etc... Different system altogether, doesn't jive with revisionist history.
I’m not exactly sure tbh. Something about the electoral college? Not sure how we got to that time when Alabama and Mississippi pushed for the civil rights act and the 14th amendment.
The next logical direction for this convo is some dinesh D’Souza memes
Prager University video incoming.
Still haven’t explained why we’d have to abolish states to allow for a popular vote. Instead of just keeping our system in place as is but switching to a popular vote
Recount would be done on a nationwide basis, which would entail not only state counting methods but counties as well. Imagine recounting 130 million votes with thousands of different counting systems. Under one governmental body, the voting system and canvassing would all be the same. With state governments, each state would have a different counting method, different voting methods, different ballots.
You'd be opening a can of worms, not very well thought out tbh
I'd be ok with dividing up the electoral votes based on percentages though.
Can't even get one state like Iowa to canvass properly but you expect 50 to do so at the same time?
His campaign knew what it was doing when it was hiding him from public appearances as much as humanly possible, but now that he has ground to make up in the polls they can’t hide him anymore and it’s a disaster
Uh, doesn't that actually happen every election or are you saying multiple states are a disaster every federal election?Can't even get one state like Iowa to canvass properly but you expect 50 to do so at the same time?
So the objection to the popular vote is no longer some obscure “we need to change our whole government for it to make sense” argument, but rather a question of logistics.Recount would be done on a nationwide basis, which would entail not only state counting methods but counties as well. Imagine recounting 130 million votes with thousands of different counting systems. Under one governmental body, the voting system and canvassing would all be the same. With state governments, each state would have a different counting method, different voting methods, different ballots.
You'd be opening a can of worms, not very well thought out tbh
I'd be ok with dividing up the electoral votes based on percentages though.
Can't even get one state like Iowa to canvass properly but you expect 50 to do so at the same time?
Thats progress. Still falls flat
right now in the general election, each state records it’s own popular vote totals. It’s already done. Now you just tally those results. A step which is already taken every election.
If a particular state had reporting issues you can still have that one state do a recount if needed.
We already have a nationwide popular vote so there isn’t a need to change the mechanics. You just put away the napkin math
Why not do away with the EC and go with the popular vote? It's really pretty simple. Article 2, section 1, clause 2 of the US Cons ution. You can wish all you want but you are stuck with it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
